CWP No. 17709 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17709 of 2009 Date of decision: 27.04.2010 Divisional Forest Officer (Territorial) Rohtak ...... PETITIONER VERSUS Phoolpati w/o Sh. Kapoor Singh and another ....... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. D.S.Nalwa, Addl. A.G. Haryana, for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award dated 05.11.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, vide which reference has been answered in favour of the worklady-respondent No. 1 holding her entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are totally erroneous and against the records. He contends that the Management had specifically stated in its response to the CWP No. 17709 of 2009 2 claim statement that the services of the worklady were never terminated and she continued with the Management from November, 1988 to February, 2001. The alleged date of termination i.e. 21.09.1999, as asserted by respondent No. 1-worklady, was totally misconceived and the learned Labour Court has not taken into consideration the same while deciding the reference in favour of the worklady. He, on this basis, prays that the impugned Award deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No.1 contends that in case the assertion of the petitioner is taken to be correct that the termination of the services had not taken place then why the worklady would resort to raising the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. The said stand was taken by the Management only to scuttle the claim of respondent No. 1-worklady. He contends that the relevant records relating to work period having not been produced by the Management i.e. 12 months preceding from the date of her termination, the Labour Court had rightly drawn an adverse inference against the petitioner-Management and had concluded that the provisions under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act have been violated. The finding recorded by the Labour Court is based on the settled legal principle and, therefore, cannot be faulted with. In any case, he submits that in compliance with the Award passed by the Labour Court, respondent No. 1-worklady has been taken back in service and she is continuing in her job. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. There is weight in the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 1-worklady that the Management may have taken a stand to scuttle the claim of the worklady before the Labour Court. The Labour Court has CWP No. 17709 of 2009 3 proceeded to decide the case on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties as the Management despite being called upon to produce the relevant records for 12 preceding months from the date of her termination, failed to produce the same. The Labour Court has rightly drawn an adverse inference against the petitioner and, therefore, the conclusion drawn and the finding recorded with regard to the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be faulted with. In any case, respondent No. 1-worklady stands reinstated in service and, therefore, since no back wages have been granted, the Court is not inclined to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE April 27, 2010 pj