1 SB Civil Writ Petition No.2881/2005 Arjun & Ors. vs. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2881/2005 Arjun and others. vs. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Udaipur and another. Date : 3.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.PR Mehta, for the petitioners. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners, 4 in number, are aggrieved against the award dated 17.1.2003 whereby their claims have been rejected by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Udaipur. However, the dispute referred was with respect to 45 employees and the Labour Court has allowed the award to some of employees who are 13 in number and who produced their own affidavits in support of their claim and the petitioners' claim have been rejected on the ground that they did not appear in the witness box. 2 SB Civil Writ Petition No.2881/2005 Arjun & Ors. vs. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal & Anr. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that when sufficient material was available before the Labour Court, then the Labour Court should not have rejected the claim of the claimants particularly, when the original record was in possession of the employer and the employer failed to produce the record to dispute the claim of the claimants/petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment delivered by the Bombay High Court in the case of P.M. More vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 and another reported in 2000 (87) FLR 228. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record also as well as the reasons given by the Labour Court in the impugned award. From the award, it is clear that the Labour Court was of the view that the deponent employees who gave their affidavits were cross examined and in cross examination, their credibility has not 3 SB Civil Writ Petition No.2881/2005 Arjun & Ors. vs. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal & Anr. been destroyed and, therefore, the Labour Court firstly accepted the evidence produced by the claimants. However, since the employer did not produce the record, therefore, adverse inference was also drawn against the employer. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the applicants who were 45 in number, claimed that they worked from 1978 to 1985 and the Labour Court observed that the service of some of the persons were terminated as back as in the year 1985 and they raised the dispute for the first time in 1994. However, the Labour Court was of the view that the claim of the employees is not liable to be rejected only on the ground of delayed raising of the claim/dispute. Be it as it may be, the fact remains is that the Labour Court was of the view that there is trustworthy evidence produced by the claimants and that could have been rebutted by the employer by producing evidence and since the employer failed to produce the evidence to rebut the evidence of the employees, therefore, adverse inference is required to be drawn against the employer and, therefore, allowed the claim of the claimants who were 13 in number only. 4 SB Civil Writ Petition No.2881/2005 Arjun & Ors. vs. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal & Anr. In the case of P.M. More (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, one of the employee appeared in the witness box but another did not appear but a settlement dated 7.5.90 was arrived at under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act and the petitioners' names were shown in the list of that settlement dated 7.5.90 and that was a trustworthy evidence which was relied upon by the Labour Court and that was found to be evidence for grant of relief. Here in this case, from the record, it is clear that there is contention of the employer that at the relevant time, about 5000 to 6000 employees were working and the petitioners who raised the dispute jointly having number 45 could produce 13 claimants only. In view of the fact there is no evidence which was required to be rebutted in the matter of claim of persons whose claims have been rejected, therefore, there was no occasion for drawing adverse inference to the extent of the claim of the petitioners by the Labour Court. 5 SB Civil Writ Petition No.2881/2005 Arjun & Ors. vs. The Judge, Industrial Tribunal & Anr. In the facts of the case, I do not find any illegality in the impugned award. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya