IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.804 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 05.03.2010 Central Institute for Research on Buffaloes, Hisar through its Director ....Petitioner(s) vs. Suresh and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Amit Sharma, Advocate and Mr.Raj Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 21.7.2009 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.2-Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh, vide which the reference has been answered in favour of respondent No.1- workman holding him entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent- workman has failed to prove before the Labour Court that he had worked with the petitioner-Management for more than 240 days in the 12 preceding months from the date of his alleged termination. He contends that the Labour Court has drawn an adverse inference against the Management for non-production of the muster-rolls from November 1987 to May 1988. He contends that the onus to prove that the respondent-workman had completed C.W.P.No.804 of 2010 -2- more than 240 days in service, was on the workman himself. The working details were given by the Management in its response to the claim statement submitted by the respondent-workman. The said details show that the workman had abandoned his service in October, 1987 and thereafter, did not ever turn up to join service. No request or application was moved before the Labour Court by the respondent-workman for production of the muster rolls which as per the Labour Court have not been produced by the Management i.e. from November 1987 to May 1988. In the absence of any request on behalf of the respondent-workman for production of the muster- rolls and in the light of the specific stand of the Management that since October, 1987 the workman had not worked with the Management, no adverse inference could have been drawn by the Labour Court against the Management for non-production of the muster-rolls when there was no such direction on behalf of the Labour Court so much so any request on behalf of the workman for production of the same. The said onus being on the workman having not been discharged by him, the drawal of adverse inference against the Management for non-production of the records is totally uncalled for and, therefore, the Award deserves to be set aside. Notice of motion was issued in this case. Respondent No.1-workman was duly served as per the report of the Registry dated 23.2.2010. When the case came up for hearing on 24.2.2010, no one put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 and accordingly respondent No.1-workman was proceeded against ex parte. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the records of the case. The Award passed by the Labour Court cannot be C.W.P.No.804 of 2010 -3- sustained for the reason that the onus was on the workman to prove that he had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months. His mere statement would not suffice and in any case, in his affidavit which he had submitted before the Labour Court dated 22.6.1998 (Annexure P-3), the workman had not stated that he had completed more than 240 days in service in the 12 preceding months from the date of his termination. In his cross-examination before the Labour Court on 26.7.2001 (Annexure P-4) he had further stated that he could not say whether he had completed 240 days or not but had only stated that he was continuously working with the Management. When there is no specific and categoric statement on behalf of the respondent-workman that he had completed more than 240 days in service and thereafter, no request was made to the Labour Court for production of the records by the Management, the non-production of the said records by the Management cannot be made a ground to draw an adverse inference against the Management. That apart, the specific stand of the Management was that the workman had abandoned his service in October 1987. As per the stand taken by the Management, they had produced the muster rolls prior to the date he had abandoned the service. The Management thus, was not required to produce the muster-rolls subsequent to that date unless requested or called upon to do so. In the absence of such a request on behalf of the respondent-workman or a direction on behalf of the Labour Court for production of records, no adverse inference could have been drawn against the petitioner- Management for non-production of the muster rolls for the period from November 1987 to May 1988. The Award passed by the Labour Court, C.W.P.No.804 of 2010 -4- therefore, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned Award dated 21.7.2009 passed by the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Chandigarh is hereby set aside. March 05, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE