1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.864/2001. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.5280/2000. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Sharma & Anr. : : Date of Order 4.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Mr. Satyapal Singh for the respondents-workmen. These two writ petitions are directed against the awards passed by Labour Court. Both the awards were passed by the Labour on 22.6.2000, by which direction of services of respondent-workman in each of the writ petitions by the petitioner on 1.1.1993 was held illegal and therefore, they would be entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity, but without any back wages. Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the State has argued that respondents-workmen in both cases admitted before the 2 Labour Court that they never worked directly with the petitioner after 1986 and that they were working through a contractor, details of which were not given as to how and in what manner they were being paid their salary. In Writ Petition No.864/2001, the writ-petitioner has produced on record a chart indicating that respondent-workman Ashok Kumar worked with the petitioner for 126 days in 1986-87 and one day in 1987-88 and 26 days in 1991-92. In Writ Petition No.5280/2000, respondent-workman Mahesh Sharma similarly worked for 63 days in 1985-86 and 51 days in 1991. It is contended that Labour Court has although recored the finding that respondents failed to give any specific details about the contractor nor he has impleaded such contractor as party nor any such documents were produced or summoned. Labour Court also held that dispute has been raised after enormous delay. In order to cover up the delay workmen in both the claimed that they worked for the petitioner till 31.12.1992, even than, the findings on the question of violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act have been recorded singularly on the premise that petitioner in spite of having failed to produce documents or records relating to respondents-workmen. 3 Learned counsel appearing for respondents- workmen in both cases submitted that all the documents with regard to their employment were with possession of the State and that the respondents stated in the claim that till 1986 they were directly working with petitioner and beyond this period they worked with contractor and payment of wages made by the contractor. It was argued that there was no record with the respondents which they could have produced, which were in exclusive possession with petitioner. Labour Court passed specific order to produce documents and inspite of that petitioner failed to produce such record. Learned Labour Court was, therefore, justified in drawing adverse inference against the petitioner and the award does not require any interference of this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that Labour Court in para 8 of the award has recorded a specific finding that respondents-workmen in their statement before Labour Court admitted that they worked under the direct control of the petitioner for quite long time, but beyond that period they were engaged though contractor. The workmen did not give any information about who was the contractor nor any such 4 contractor was impleaded as party respondent. The Labour Court also held that the respondents also did not summon the record relating to any such contractor. Labour Court even held that it appears that respondents-workmen worked with petitioner till quite long ago and in order to false by cover up the dispute showing that they worked till 31.12.1992 they are now asserting that they were removed w.e.f. 1.1.1993. Even than the Labour Court has recorded the findings of violation of Section 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act simply on the ground that the petitioner in spite of being required to produce record, failed to produce the same. It is thus evident that findings recorded by Labour Court in para 8 of the award are self contradictory. It cannot be held that claim of respondents-workmen was justified and they were taking a false plea that they worked for 240 days. Delay in raising the dispute also show that respondents-workmen were not engaged by the petitioner not only in the past but for quite long ago, which fact was admitted by respondents that they were working in 1986 and they were working through contractor for the subsequent period. Obviously, there was no record with the petitioner which they could produce, but non-production of record would not be a reason for taking adverse inference against them. Respondents- 5 workman themselves were also responsible to discharge initial burden of proof showing that in a calender year immediately preceding the date of alleged removal i.e. 1.1.1993 they worked with petitioner for 240 days and when that claim of the respondents has been found to be disproved by Labour Court, there was no justification even to hold violation of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act and on that basis also, of Section 25-G & 25-H of the Act. In view of discussions made above, the award passed by Labour Court dated 22.6.2000 in both cases cannot be sustained. Both the award are, therefore, set aside. Both these writ petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION No.562/2003. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. Shri Atul Garg & Anr. : : Date of Order 4.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Satyapal Singh for the petitioner. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. In view of dismissal of writ petitions namely; SB Civil Writ Petition No.864/2001 : State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. and SB Civil Writ Petition No.5280/2000 : State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Sharma & Anr. the contempt petition is also required to be dismissed. The contempt petition is dismissed accordingly. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/-