AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vikramajit Sen, Ag C.J.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the delay of 671 days has been occasioned because of the preferment and pendency of a Review Petition, which came to be dismissed on 21.10.2010. We would have expected the appellant to file the appeal with extreme expedition keeping the circumstances in view. The appeal however has been filed on 03.03.2011 after inordinate delay. Sufficient grounds for condoning the delay have not been disclosed. However, since we have heard the matter on merits also, we would prefer to consider the appeal on merits. The learned Single Judge has noted that the management /appellant has failed to substantiate its plea that the respondent /workman had not worked for 240 days continuously in any given year. It is not in dispute that between the period 23.11.1967 and 01.12.1975, the respondent/workman had worked as a Badli Conductor. It is the management/appellant, which prepares and preserves attendance records, and therefore, it would be the only party who can substantiate these facts. In such circumstances, as the one before us, law cannot expect a workman especially a Badli workman to meticulously keep the records for the past years also, so as to prove that he/she had worked continuously for a period of 240 days in each year.
We are in complete agreement with the learned Single Judge that an adverse inference should have been drawn against the management/appellant and in favour of the respondent/ workman concerned. Moreover, the provision of Section 2-A of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972, has not been complied with. This being the statutory obligation, the management/appellant cannot be heard to say that it is not liable to pay all due as claimed by the workman /respondent.
The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed accordingly.