ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) ). THE respondent No. 2 was a casual employee of the Statesman Limited. He was appointed on July 16, 1982 and was discharged from service on May 1, 1997. According to the workman he completed 240 days work in a calendar year to fulfil the requirement of section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act, 1947" ). According to him since he fulfilled the requirement of Section 25-B he was entitled to a notice under Section 25-F which was not served upon him. Hence, the discharge from service and/or retrenchment was illegal.

( 2 ) ). The workman raised an industrial dispute. The State Government made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal under the provisions of the said Act, 1947.

( 3 ) ). Before the Tribunal it was the categoric case of the workman that he completed 240 days to make the requirement of Section 25-B of the said Act, 1947 and as such he was entitled to a notice under Section 25-F which was not: given.

( 4 ) ). In the written statement the employer did not dispute the period of service rendered by the workman i. e. between 1982 to 1997. With regard to 240 days work there had been a general denial on the part of the employer.

( 5 ) ). When the reference was heard by the tribunal the workman contended that his juniors in employment as casual workers were made permanent and he was singled out by the employer. In support of his contention that he had worked during the said period for 240 days in a year the concerned workman produced his esi identity card, the records pertaining to the bonus payment for the year 1995-96, his leave application received by the employer. He also contended that he used to draw salary once a month. He also produced pay slips in support of his contention.

( 6 ) ). On behalf of the employer one Mr. A. Sil and one Mr. A. K. Das and Mr. A. Basu were produced as witness. Mr. A. K. Das admitted that the attendance of the concerned workman was being recorded in the attendance register by " some other entrusted persons". He also admitted that the workman was in service during the said period. Mr. Das, however, contended that the concerned workman did not work for 240 days but he did not bring the relevant records on the date of his examination. The other two witnesses except for contending that the workman was a casual worker neither assisted the Tribunal by giving any cogent evidence nor by producing any records with regard to his attendance.

( 7 ) ). The Tribunal considering the evidence drew adverse inference (sic) as against the employer as they withheld the best evidence being attendance register and pay register where from it could be found whether the concerned workman had worked 240 days in a calendar year or not. The Tribunal awarded reinstatement with full back wages. Challenging the award the present writ petition was filed by the employer. The writ petition was heard by the learned single Judge and was disposed of by his judgment and order dated september 5, 2000 appearing at page 93 to 99 of the paper book.

( 8 ) ). Before the learned single Judge it was contended on behalf of the employer that since no formal appointment letter was issued to the workman he could not claim any benefit of section 25-F. It was further contended in the writ petition that assuming he was entitled to notice under Section 25-F the Tribunal ought not to have awarded full back wages unless it was held that the workman had a right to continue in service.

( 9 ) ). The learned Judge held that the tribunal rightly drew adverse inference (sic) against the employer for withholding the best evidence. The learned Judge also held that the absence of appointment letter did not lead to a conclusion that the employee was not a workman. The learned Judge lastly held that once the termination was bad full back wages was an usual consequence and there could not be any departure from that. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition.

( 10 ) ).

Click Here to Read the rest of this document