CWP No. 18048 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 18048 of 2008 Date of decision: 27.05.2009 Punjab Warehousing Corporation through its Managing Director and others .....PETITIONERS VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Ms. Geeta Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order dated 27.03.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda, vide which an application moved under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act by Pritam Singh-respondent No. 2 for the recovery of Rs. 16,834/-, has been allowed to the limited extent holding him entitled to an amount of Rs. 8417/- as wages from 21.05.2000 to 31.08.2000 @ Rs. 2500/- per month. CWP No. 18048 of 2008 2 Counsel for the petitioners contends that the finding, which has been recorded by the Labour Court, is totally based on conjectures and surmises. The onus was on the workman to establish that the workman was entitled to recovery of the amount, as has been claimed by him. It was alleged by the workman-respondent No. 2 that he had worked with the petitioner-Management as a Chowkidar to take care of the wheat stock from 21.05.2000 to 31.08.2000 on the wages of Rs. 2500/- per month. He had claimed that he had performed duty for 12 hours daily and for this work, he has not been paid either the wages or the over time. She contends that these were assertions made by the workman and he was required to prove the same. He himself appeared as a witness as AW1 and one Jagdish Singh- AW2 also appeared in his support. None of the witnesses were able to establish that the workman had ever worked with the Management and specially for the period, for which the wages are claimed by him. She further contends that this was a pure oral evidence, which was a self serving statement by the workman, which was corroborated by a person, who himself has no legs to stand on. The workman has not been able to prove firstly that he was employed by the Management and secondly that he had performed his duty for the said period, as has been claimed by him. She contends that on the other hand, the petitioners-Management has examined Sucha Singh, RW-1 and Raj Singh, RW-2, who had categorically stated that Pritam Singh had not performed any duty with the Management. She, on this basis, contends that the findings, which have been recorded by the Labour Court and the part claim of wages for the period 21.05.2000 to 31.08.2000 @ Rs. 2500/- per month, which have been granted to the workman, are based on no evidence and cannot be sustained. CWP No. 18048 of 2008 3 Notice in the present writ petition was issued to the respondents and as per the report of the Registry, service was effected on respondent No. 2 for 12.01.2009. None had put in appearance on his behalf and, accordingly, he was proceeded against ex-parte. Today also, none has appeared on his behalf. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the records of the case. The claim, which was made by the workman, the onus to prove such assertion was upon the workman himself. Except for the oral statements, which have been made by him and one Sh. Jagdish Singh, there is nothing on record to substantiate their assertion that he had worked with the Management for the period 21.05.2000 to 31.08.2000 and that too, on wages @ Rs. 2500/- per month. It is not in dispute that the petitioners-Management is a Government undertaking and records are maintained by it. The workman to discharge his onus of proving his claim could have summoned the records through the Labour Court and in case, the said records, so summoned, were not produced before the Labour Court, the assertion of the workman could be said to have been substantiated due to presumption of adverse inference against the Management for non-production of the records. No efforts have been made by the workman to summon the records, which would have substantiated his claim with regard to his wages for the period, for which he had worked with the Management. No such thing having been done, the finding, as recorded by the Labour Court that the records have not been produced by the Management and, therefore, adverse inference has been drawn, is on the wrong assumption. A party is not required to produce the records but in case, such records are summoned by the Court and if they CWP No. 18048 of 2008 4 are not produced or the party is unable to produce the same, then adverse inference can be drawn against the said party. In the present case, the onus, which was on the workman to prove that he had worked with the Management for the period 21.05.2000 to 31.08.2000, for which he was claiming wages and over time, having not been discharged, the findings, as recorded by the Labour Court, cannot be sustained as the workman has failed to prove his assertion on this count. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.03.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Bathinda, is hereby set aside. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE May 27, 2009 pj Whether referred to Reporters..................Yes/No. CWP No. 18048 of 2008 5