Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation vs Chaman Lal Chaman Lal and Another Vs Presiding Officer and Others

K. Kannan, J.—Both the writ petitions are connected. The writ petition in CWP No. 15574 of 1991 is at the instance of the workman against the award of the Labour Court, while the writ petition in CWP No. 9810 of 1991 is against the same award by the Management. The subject of reference to the Labour Court was a decision for termination of service of a Chowkidar with the 3rd respondent-PUNSUP. The charge against him was that he was absent on several dates, namely, 16.02.1981, 25.05.1981, 07.12.1982, 09.02.1983, 21.05.1983, 06.07.1983 and 09.07.1983. The workman denied these charges, but the Enquiry Officer/disciplinary authority found him guilty of the charges and ordered removal.

On a challenge before the Labour Court, the management witness gave evidence that he only remembered the workman to be absent on those dates but produced no attendance register before the Labour Court. It is not very clear from the judgment of the Labour Court whether the attendance register had been produced at least before the Enquiry Officer, when the workman was contending that he had, at all times, been present and the Management was trying to take action that he had been guilty of absence. Then the burden of proof is squarely on the Management to establish with materials which they ought to have had. It is not even the contention of the Management that there was no attendance register, but they had some other manner of ascertaining whether a person was present or not. When the issue was before the Labour Court, the Court has merely observed that the workman has only challenged the termination of service on the ground of denial of reasonable opportunity and that the evidence did not prove that the workman was not absent on the dates noted by him. This is rather a strange observation, for, a workman cannot prove a negative. If it is seen that he was not present and the Management has their records that would vouch for a fact of whether a person was present or not and the same was not filed in Court or before the Enquiry Officer, it ought to have made an inference that the Management had failed to prove the charge levied against him. The issue of whether a person was absent or not cannot be merely a fact to be proved by oral evidence; it ought to be established by documentary proof since we are concerned with a public sector organization and they cannot allow the attendance of workmen to be assessed without any documentary proof therefor. I find the ultimate decision arrived at by the Labour Court was utterly perverse and without reference to any worthwhile evidence placed before it. The termination effected on alleged proof of charges was taken not merely on an inadequate evidence but on absolute no evidence at all. The judgment of the Labour Court is, therefore, required to be set aside and the dismissal of the petitioner from employment is required to be quashed and, accordingly, quashed. He shall be entitled to reinstatement with full backwages and all consequential benefits. CWP No. 15574 of 1991 is allowed and CWP No. 9810 of 1991 is dismissed. The cost assessed at Rs. 5,000/- in each case.