AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.B. Chaudhari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11-08-2000 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent and granting him the benefits of permanency as Muster Clerk in place of Mazdoor, the present writ petition was filed by the State of Maharashtra.
In support of the Writ Petition, Mr. Adgokar, learned AGP argued that in absence of good & satisfactory evidence on record, the Industrial Court has wrongly applied the Kalelkar Settlement and ordered the petitioners to bring the respondent on regular establishment as Muster Clerk when he was already brought on the said establishment as a labour i.e. Mazdoor.
Per contra, Mr. Khan, learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the writ petition and contended that the respondent was appointed in the year 1978 and from the beginning, as his evidence shows, he was entrusted the work of tracing, printing, khasara collection etc., which is not the work of Mazdoor and that is why he claimed the relief of grant of permanency as Muster Clerk. He then invited my attention to Exh. 21, the certificate issued by the S.D.O. which clearly certifies the nature of work performed by the respondent, and which clearly shows that the respondent was working as Muster Clerk or was performing the duties like the Muster Clerk. Therefore, no fault can be found out with the judgment of the Industrial Court. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
I have gone through the impugned judgment and order made by the Industrial Court, so also evidence of the respondent and the witness of the petitioners. Having heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties, I find that the evidence of respondent employee is the parole evidence, which he wants the court to reply upon in the absence of sufficient documentary evidence. If it was the case of the respondent that he was actually performing the work of writing, tracing, printing etc., the respondent ought to have brought the evidence before the Court through the process of Court since he was working in the Government Department. The evidence before the Court ought to be of better quality rather than the parole evidence of the complainant respondent.
In this case, except relying on Certificate Exh. 21, the respondent did not choose to bring on record any better & satisfactory evidence. In the absence of documentary evidence that too being available with the Government Department, the Industrial Court was not justified in accepting the oral evidence of the respondent employee as gospel truth and then proceed to grant the relief based thereon. The Certificate Exh. 21 has not been proved according to law and bare perusal thereof shows that it was issued in the year 1994 showing the nature of work performed by the respondent from the year 1978. The certificate, therefore, cannot be relied upon as evidence. Except this evidence, no other evidence was brought by the respondent employee on record. Mr. Khan then pointed out Exh.20 by which the respondent was directed to collect the map from Talathi. This is no evidence by describing the nature of work as a Muster Clerk, since collecting map from Patwari can be done even by the Labour or peon. At the same time, if the oral evidence of Witness No. 1, Madhav Vinze is seen, it is seen that he has categorically denied that the respondent was doing the work of tracing, printing and Khasra collection and there is no serious challenge to his oral testimony in the cross examination. When there is oath against oath, the court ought to prefer documentary evidence when the same was available. In the absence thereof, the Industrial Court, in my opinion, was not justified in granting the relief.
In the result, I make the following order.
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside. The complaint filed by the respondent is dismissed. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.