AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.N. Srikrishna, J.—This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order of the Labour Court, Pune, dated 10th April, 1992 made in Application (IDA) No. 1267 of 1987 dismissing the application u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').
The Petitioner was employed by the First Respondent as a leading hand and his service came to be terminated abruptly on 28th January," 1983. The Petitioner challenged" the termination of his service by his Complaint (ULP) No. 28 of 1983 in which he sought a declaration of unfair labour practice on the part of the First Respondent and relief of consequential benefits. By an order dated 28th January, 1986 made in Complaint (ULP) No. 28 of 1983, the Labour Court allowed the complaint and the reliefs prayed for were granted. The First Respondent preferred Revision Application No. 36 of 1986, but the Industrial Court dismissed the revision application by its order dated 27th July, 1987. Writ Petition No. 3821 of 1987 moved by the First Respondent against the order of the Industrial Court was also summarily rejected.
The Petitioner was reinstated from 30th September, 1987, but paid only his last drawn basic salary (7.e. Basic Salary in 1983) and his back-wages were calculated on the basis of his basic salary in 1983. The Petitioner filed Application (IDA) No. 1267 of 1987 u/s 33-C(2) of the Act claiming Rs,59,330.75 (Rupees fifty-nine thousand three hundred thirty and paise seventy-five only) as arrears of back-wages. The application of the Petitioner was opposed by the First Respondent which contended before the Labour Court that it had correctly fixed the salary and that the back-wages had been properly computed and paid over to the Petitioner. The Petitioner made applications dated 19th August, 1989 and 7th March, 1991, to the Labour Court seeking production of documents to prove that the salaries of other workers who were working as leading hands had been substantially revised and, therefore, he was entitled to wages and Dearness Allowance as paid to other leading hands. The applications were opposed by the First Respondent, By an order dated 27th November, 1991, the Labour Court rejected the application of the Petitioner. Finally, by the impugned order dated 10th April, 1992, the Labour Court took the view that the Petitioner has failed to lead any evidence with regard to his contention that the wages and Dearness Allowances paid to the other leading hands like C. Narayan and P.M. Philips had been revised or that the Petitioner was entitled to similar corresponding benefits. In this view of the matter, the application and the claim made therein were dismissed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
The learned Counsel on both sides have taken me through the two applications for production of documents, the order made thereupon and in the impugned order of the Labour Court. It appears to me that there is a basic error of the Labour Court. One of the methods in which evidence can be led is to seek an order for production of documents and information which are in the exclusive custody of the opposite party. If the apposite party fails to produce them, the adjudicating authority would be justified in drawing adverse inferences. In the instant case, the material documents and information as to the conditions of service applicable to leading hands, which had been revised during the period the Petitioner was out of employment, is a matter within the exclusive knowledge of the First Respondent and, therefore, the Labour Court ought to have directed the First Respondent to produce the said information and documents on record. Instead of doing so, the Labour Court erroneously rejected the application for production of documents. In my view, therefore, it would be necessary to quash and set aside the impugned order of the Labour Court and give appropriate directions for production of documents and remand the application for re-hearing.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of the Labour Court dated 10th April, 1992 in Application (IDA) No. 1267 of 1987 is quashed and set aside and the following order is made :
(a) Application (IDA) No. 1267 of 1987 is restored to the file of the First Labour Court, Pune. The First Respondent shall file before the Labour Court Establishment details and personal file of the Petitioner along with details of the wages and Dearness Allowance paid or payable to the Petitioner from time to time.
(b) The First Respondent shall also file documents showing the Dearness Allowances, basic wages and other monetary benefits made available to leading hands, C. Narayan and P.M. Philips, between the period 1.1.1982 to 31.1.1987.
(c) The Labour Court shall give an opportunity to both parties to lead Curt her evidence in support, of their respective case and consider if there would be parity of conditions of service of C. Narayan and P.M. Philips, leading hands, and the service conditions applicable to the Petitioner, in order to judge the case of the Petitioner that he is entitled to monetary benefits on the same scale.
As the application has been delayed for considerable time, the Labour Court shall hear and dispose of the application as expeditiously as possible.
Rule made absolute in the a foregoing terms with no order as to costs.