AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mehtab S. Gill, J.—Petitioner has filed a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award dated October 12, 1998 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No. 2-the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, Ambala.
It has been averred in the petition that respondent No. 1 -workman was engaged as a night watchman on daily wages at DC rates w.e.f. November 1, 1990 and he worked there from November 2, 1990 to January 28, 1991 and from January 30, 1991 to March 31, 1991. It has been further averred that he has not completed 240 days in job during the preceding 12 months. His number of working days was calculated, which comes to 149 days. Respondent No. 1-workman issued a demand notice dated May 8, 1992 and the Labour Court decided the case in his favour.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ and the annexures attached therewith.
At the very outset, it was pointed out that the muster roll, Exhibit M-1 and the pay roll. Exhibit M-2, were produced before the Labour Court, but these documents were fabricated by the Management and fictitious names in the muster roll were given. Respondent No. 1 -workman filed an application for additional evidence that the muster roll qua workmen, namely, Kulbir Singh, Sant Singh and Mehtab Singh be produced and their addresses be disclosed by the Management so that they could be summoned and they be brought before the Labour Court to prove whether they worked with the Management or not. The application was allowed vide order dated August 11, 1998, but the Management in spite of availing sufficient opportunities could not give the addresses of these workmen. Shri Randhir Singh, Manager, Rice Sheller, Shahbad, in his statement, has stated that the names of workmen, namely. Kulbir Singh and Sant Singh are mentioned in the muster roll, but their complete addresses are not there.
Another admission made on the part of the Management is that the maintenance of the muster roll is very poor. Petitioner-Hafed is a Statutory Undertaking and maintenance of record should be given top priority. Respondent No. 1-workman appeared as WW-2 in the witness box, who was supported by his colleague, another co-worker. Sat Pal, who appeared as WW-1, If the muster roll and the attendance register are not kept in a proper manner, it just shows that some sort of hanky panky could have been done by the petitioner. This suspicion of ours that the muster roll and the attendance register were tampered with, goes in favour of the workman.
For the reasons stated above, this petition has got no merit and it is, thus, dismissed.
Petition dismissed.