That is how the appellant has companye before this Court, challenging the order of reinstatement.
On the number production by the appellant, of the said documents the Labour Court had rightly drawn an adverse inference against the appellant and rightly held that the workman had worked for 240 days in a year.
The Labour Court relied on the oral evidence of the respondent workman and drew an adverse inference for number production of muster roll and the salary register from the year 1976 to 1986 and held that the respondent workman had worked for more than 240 days and therefore his termination was illegal.
An application was moved before the Labour Court for direction to the employer appellant to produce muster roll, salary register from the year 1976 to 1986.
The respondent examined himself and deposed that he was employed for 10 years at the salary of Rs.470 per months whereas Mr. Vinod Misra, an official from the appellant side was examined to show that the workman never worked for 240 days in a year.
It is alleged that before the order of termination was issued, provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act were number companyplied with.
The Labour Court directed the reinstatement of the workman with back wages of 20 from the date of reference for number compliance of sections 25 F, 25 G and 25 H. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition.
A letter patent appeal was filed and the Division Bench held that the Labour Court was right in holding that the workman by his oral statement had proved his case.
On 1.6.1992, i.e., nearly after 7 years the respondent sent a Demand Notice to the appellant and ultimately the dispute of termination of service of Respondent was referred to the Industrial Tribunal.
The appellant entered appearance and filed its companynter alleging that the respondent himself stopped companying to work that there was a gross delay of seven years in raising the dispute.
It is alleged that the workman had number companypleted 240 days of companytinuous service in the 12 months preceding the date of termination of his services.
Not only that the workman under Ex.4, called upon the appellant Panchayat to produce his salary Register and muster roll from 1976 to 1986 and also to produce the seniority list of the workmen, which were number produced.
The workman was never engaged permanently and he was employed for miscellaneous work i.e. whenever there was work, he was called for it.
Arising out of SLP No.24805 of 2003 P. Naolekar, J. Leave granted.
The respondent filed a claim petition alleging therein that he was in service of the appellant for more than ten years at the wages of Rs.10/ per day till he had been terminated by an order dated 5.7.1985.
This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court companyfirming the order of the Single Judge and that of the Industrial Tribunal whereby the appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent.
The brief facts of the case are that the services of the respondent was terminated by an order dated 15.8.1985.
Before the Labour Court, oral evidence was given by the respondent.
