C.W.P. No.10067 of 2001 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.10067 of 2001 Date of Decision: 08.12.2009 Ram Kishore .....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Gurgaon and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. H.S.Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Nalwa, Addl. A.G., Haryana. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The workman sought for the reference on the ground that he had worked continuously for 240 days from 06.09.1990 and the statement had been filed generally denying the same. In evidence before the Labour Court, the management had produced the details of the period when the workman was reported to have worked and had given details of working from September 1990 to May, 1993. The Labour Court considered the document with reference to his working from January, 1993 to May, 1993 and found that the workman had only 103 days of service. The reference was, under the circumstances, rejected. C.W.P. No.10067 of 2001 -2- 2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Labour Court was bound to have examined the 12 months period to the date of termination in May, 1993 and therefore, it ought to have examined the number of days of the workman's attendance from June, 1992 to May, 1993. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the management had not produced all the muster rolls relating to the said period and adverse inference ought to have drawn by the failure of the management to produce all the records which ought to have been in the company relating to the actual periods of engagement of the workman. It is too fundamental a proposition to reiterate that the initial burden of proof is always on the workman to establish that a workman had 240 days of continuous service to comply with statutory mandate of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. When the management witness had produced some documents which were extract from the muster rolls of the number of days that the workman had worked unless the extract itself is attacked as unworthy of acceptance and that the statement of duty period recorded by the management that was produced before the Court was fabricated for the purpose of the case, the question of drawing adverse inference does not arise. The Labour Court was no doubt wrong in taking into account only the period of service from January, 1993 but if a proper reckoning were to be made from the extract, which was produced C.W.P. No.10067 of 2001 -3- by the management, it is seen that the workman had worked in the relevant period for 27 days in August and 26 days in December. The extract does not show that the workman had been working in September, October or November. In the absence of any definite case by the workman that the records had been deliberately suppressed by the management, it would be wrong to draw an adverse inference, for no other inference was possible than how the management contended that the workman had not worked during that relevant period to count for his total number of days of service as 240 days. The factual rendering by the Labour Court would not require, under the circumstances, any intervention in the writ petition and the award of the Labour Court rejecting the reference is sustained. 3. The writ petition fails and it is dismissed. There shall be however no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 08, 2009 Pankaj*