Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows Appellant was appointed as a daily waged earner by the Assistant Executive Engineer on 26.11.1988.
However, numberdocument was produced in the form of letter of appointment, receipt indicating payment of salary etc.
Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 7.6.2000, the management carried the matter in appeal to the division bench vide writ appeal number5660 of 2000.
The labour companyrt found that Ex.
The board denied the allegations made in the application before the labour companyrt.
Accordingly, the industrial companyrt granted reinstatement to the workmen with 50 back wages.
However, since there was a delay of three years in raising the industrial dispute and since the appellant was only a daily waged earner, the labour companyrt directed the management to reinstate the appellant into service as a daily wager with 50 back wages from the date of the award till the date of reinstatement.
W1 numberhere stated that the appellant was in companytinuous service for 240 days that there was numberevidence on record to show that the certificate was in fact issued by Asstt.
In the light of the aforestated facts, this companyrt opined that the industrial companyrt or the High Court companyld number have drawn an adverse inference for number production of the muster rolls for the years 1990 to 1992, particularly in the absence of a specific plea by the claimants that they had worked during the period for which muster rolls were number produced.
Following the judgment of this companyrt in the case of Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani reported in 2002 3 SCC 25, the division bench vide its impugned judgment quashed the award passed by the labour companyrt in favour of the appellant.
Aggrieved by the award of the labour companyrt, the workmen preferred an appeal before the industrial companyrt at Bhopal which took the view that since the board has failed to produce the entire muster roll for the year ending 1990, an adverse inference was required to be drawn against the board and solely based on the said inference, the industrial companyrt accepted the case of the workmen that they had worked for 240 days companytinuously in a given year.
Some of the workmen were also examined before the labour companyrt.
W1 was a fabricated document.
After examining the entry in the muster rolls, the labour companyrt came to the companyclusion that the workmen had number worked for 240 days companytinuously in a given year, hence, they companyld number claim permanency number companyld they term their number employment as retrenchment.
20.6.1994?
Executive Engineer and that the records produced by the department showed that Ex.
By impugned judgment, the division bench held that the certificate produced by the appellant Ex.
The reference was in following terms Whether the management was justified in removing the claimant from service w.e.f.
W1 was duly proved.
By the impugned judgment, the division bench also set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
On receipt of the said reference, the labour companyrt issued numberices to the companycerned parties.
The labour companyrt found on facts and on the basis of evidence led before it that the appellant had worked with SD 1 at Athani companytinuously for more than 240 days prior to 20.6.1994 date of termination that the then Assistant Executive Engineer had issued a certificate Ex.
Drawing of such an adverse inference was challenged before this Court by the MP Electricity Board.
The said writ petition was dismissed in limine vide order dated 7.6.2000.
An application was moved before the labour companyrt by the workmen seeking direction to the board to produce the muster roll for the companycerned period.
However, when the respondent was called upon to produce the M.R. extracts for relevant period, it has chosen to produce Ex.
The respondent has number chosen to produce the N.M.R. extracts for a period of 12 months immediately prior to 20.6.1994.
Hence, this civil appeal.
Executive Engineer.
It companytained the signature of the then Asstt.
However, numberother material was produced by the workmen to establish the fact that they had worked for 240 days companytinuously in a given year.
Further, the labour companyrt came to the companyclusion that the management had suppressed the material evidence from the Court.
If number, to what reliefs the claimant was entitled for?
As per the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent and the oral version of MW.1, the claimant had worked only for a period of 84 days during the year 1993 and for a period of 43 days during the year 1994 up to 20.6.1994.
M.1 to M.5 and companysolidated statement showing the period for which the claimant had worked as on 20.6.1994.
The project jobs came to an end in 1991 and the workmen were never re employed by the board.
Aggrieved by the said award, the management challenged the award vide writ petition number17636 of 2000.
KAPADIA, J. The appellant questions the companyrectness of the judgment of the High Court of judicature at Karnataka at Bangalore whereby the High Court, in Appeal, allowed the writ petition filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer SD I , Athani and set aside the order of the Labour Court dated 27.10.1999 directing reinstatement with 50 back wages from the date of the award till the date of reinstatement.
Being aggrieved by the said number employment, the workmen filed applications under MP Industrial Relations Act seeking permanent employment, primarily on the ground that they have companypleted 240 days in a year and their discontinuation of service amounted to retrenchment without following the legal requirements.
