IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.15399 of 2008 Date of decision:22.10.2009 Punjab State Forest Development Nigam Limited ...Petitioner versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mrs. Anju Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) C.M. No.14678 of 2009 C.M. is allowed. Replication is taken on record. Civil Writ Petition No.15399 of 2008 1. The award under challenge is a direction for reinstatement but without back wages. The contention of the workman was that he had been engaged as Chowkidar-cum-Munshi since March, 1994 with the Punjab State Forest Development Nigam Limited and that he had been working continuously till he was unlawfully terminated from service on 15.05.1998 in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The management denied that the workman had been engaged for continuous period of 240 days prior to his termination Civil Writ Petition No.15399 of 2008 - 2 - and contended that he had worked only in the year, 1994 and he did not have 240 days of continuous service. 2. The Labour Court examined the issue relating to the number of days of service that the workman had put in with reference to the oral evidence tendered by the workman that he had been working from March, 1994 till 1998 and referred to the fact that the only document which had been produced by the management was the report of the Project Officer (Ex.M-2). Before the Labour Court, an attempt to secure the muster roll was made but the non-production of the same was explained by the management that the documents had been destroyed after a period of 3 years from the relevant years. The Labour Court reasoned that there were no proceedings for the destruction of the relevant records and rejected such a contention that the documents had been destroyed. Adverting to Ex.M-2, a report of the Project Officer, the witness was cross-examined on how the details of what he found in Ex.M-2, was prepared and to which the answer elicited was that there were no records on the basis of which the report of the Project Officer was based. Even the person, who had given the report was not examined. The Labour Court, therefore, drew an adverse inference against the management for non-production of the records and held that the workman had proved his engagement for 240 days. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a Project Officer could not have given a report without looking into records. The argument is neither here nor there. If the report has to be substantiated in a manner known to law, either the Civil Writ Petition No.15399 of 2008 - 3 - person who prepared the report must have been examined or the basis of preparation of the report, must be given to the Court. The report itself cannot be a primary evidence. The credibility of such a report will obtain value only by reference to the official records from where the data could have been collected to make the report. Admittedly, the basis for preparation of the reports was not mentioned either in the report itself nor was produced before the Court. Even as against the non-production of the muster roll for the relevant years, the contention that all the records had been destroyed was an irresponsible response that ill- behoves a public body especially when the case had been pending. It was not as if the demand notice had been issued far beyond time. The alleged termination from service took place in the year 1998 and the demand notice came in July, 1998 itself. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.M.Yellatti Versus The Assistant Executive Engineer-2006(1) Apex Court Judgments 667, that held that the burden of proof was on the employee and mere affidavits or self-serving statements by employee was not sufficient. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the burden was discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box and by adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In the same judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also held that the State Governments should take steps to maintain proper records of service rendered by daily wagers. The daily wager is not a person who could be thrown by the wayside on the mere whims of the management. The management had perforce to maintain Civil Writ Petition No.15399 of 2008 - 4 - the records and admittedly there were muster rolls. The destruction of public records could not have been done without proper procedure nor could the documents pale into their air, for the reason that there was a case pending in relation to the claim of the workman. 5. The writ petition is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with cost assessed at Rs.5,000/-. (K.KANNAN) 22.10.2009 JUDGE sanjeev