CWP No. 13318 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13318 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on : 21-04-2011 The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Haryana Panchkula and others ....petitioners VERSUS Smt. Lali and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the petitioners Mr. S.K.Verma, Advocate for the respondent-workman MAHESH GROVER, J This writ petition is directed against the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak. The respondent – workman raised an industrial dispute to the following effect:- “Whether termination of services of Smt. Lali is justified and if not, to what relief she is entitled to?” In the demand notice served she had categorically stated that she was engaged in the year 1988 as Beldar-cum-Mali and that on 20.6.2001 and 21.6.2001 the Forest Guard marked her absent even though she had worked for more than 8 hours on those dates. Subsequently, when she reported for duty she was not permitted to work. She thus pleaded that action of the petitioners was violative of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. A reference to the question that whether the termination of the respondent was justified or not and to what relief she was entitled to in CWP No. 13318 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the event of having being recorded to that effect was referred to the Tribunal which was answered in her favour and while doing so, learned Tribunal directed her reinstatement with continuity of service with 50% back wages from the date of issuance of demand notice i.e. 9.7.2001. Assailing the award, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that during the course of her employment, the respondent - workman was serving in different ranges and since she had not impleaded the Officers-in-charge of these ranges, the record pertaining to her employment could not be produced and therefore, the finding of the Tribunal drawing an adverse inference against the petitioners is incorrect. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners had the respondent-workman impleaded the concerned officials of the ranges where she had worked, the necessary record would have been produced but since she had confined her claim against two persons namely the Divisional Forest Officer (SFP), Bhiwani and the Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial) Bhinwani, the entire record could not be produced. Learned counsel for the respondent – workman has refuted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and had contended that the award of the Tribunal is perfectly justifiable as she was working since 1988 and her termination was without compliance of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have considered the matter. The perusal of the demand notice and also the statement of the claim made by the respondent shows that she categorically pleaded that she was engaged in the year 1988 as Beldar-cum-Mali and was posted at Badhra which was in Badhra Range and she worked in different CWP No. 13318 of 2009 (O&M) 3 areas of Badhra Range under the control of Divisional Forest Officer, (SFP) Bhiwani and the Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial) Bhinwani both of whom were impleaded as respondents in the proceedings before the Labour Tribunal and if the reply of the petitioners is to be seen then except for mere denial of the periods for which the respondent has claimed to have worked, no other details have been given regarding the various ranges where she was supposed to have worked. This plea was never raised by the petitioners in the reply filed by them to the claim petition neither was any evidence led to that effect. Rather the witness of the petitioners submitted that “he has not produced all the muster rolls of the Badhra block and he had produced the record which was available”. The petitioners who were the principle employer of the respondent were obliged to produce the record which could have established the plea which they are now raising. Withholding of the record therefore was rightly construed adversely against the petitioners by the learned Tribunal. Apart from this, as observed earlier, the petitioners have not raised any such plea in the first instance before the Labour Court. Had the petitioners done so, the respondent could have been put on notice and in such an eventuality she could have impleaded the other concerned officials of the different ranges where she has alleged to have worked. Having not done so, the petitioners cannot take advantage of such a plea which was never raised in the first instance. The award of the Tribunal is justified as the learned Tribunal has rightly concluded that the petitioners is entitled to 50% back wages which finding has been arrived at after evaluating the service rendered by the respondent. CWP No. 13318 of 2009 (O&M) 4 No ground to interfere. Hence, dismissed. April 21, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge