The workman failed to prove continuous employment for 240 days, and the Labour Court erred in directing reinstatement based on insufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(A.S. SUPEHIA, J.)

1. With consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present appeal has been finally heard and disposed of by this judgment and order.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal emanates from the judgment and order dated 20.09.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition filed by the appellant-State, dismissing the same. There were cross writ petitions filed by the workmen as well as the appellant-State assailing the award of the Labour Court dated 20.04.2019 passed in Reference (T) No.755 of 2000 (old Reference No.397 of 1993), the learned Single Judge has dismissed both the writ petitions. Being aggrieved, the State has filed the present appeal.

3. The respondent workman was engaged on monthly salary of Rs.1,750/- and their services were terminated on 31.12.1991, which gave rise to the reference proceedings. The Labour Court directed the appellant-State to reinstate the workman in service without back wages by setting aside their termination.

4. Learned AGP Ms. Shruti Dhruve appearing for the appellant- State has submitted that the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge have fell in error in directing the reinstatement of the respondent-workman by holding the termination as illegal and in violation of the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as, “I.D. Act”). She has submitted that in fact, the Labour Court was also impressed of the fact that after the discontinuation of the respondent-workman, for which, he was engaged, the appellant-State Department had engaged some labourers on contractual basis, and such fact has been held against the appellant State. She has further submitted that the Labour Court has not categorically held the termination of the respondent workman in violation of the provisions of Section 25G of the I.D. Act.

4.1 While inviting the findings of the Labour Court, learned AGP has submitted that an adverse inference has been drawn against the appellant Department for non production of the muster rolls prior to year-1991. She has submitted that in fact, the appellant Department had categorically contended before the Labour Court that the respondent workman was only engaged for the period from January- 1991 to June-1991, and had only worked for 179 days and the documentary evidences in this regard, were also produced. However, the Labour Court has directed the appellant Department to reinstate the respondent workman by holding that the appellant Department has deliberately suppressed the muster rolls for the period prior to the year-1991. It is also submitted that the appellant Department cannot be coerced to produce the muster rolls, which are not in existence as the workman was not engaged prior to year-1991.

4.2 Learned AGP has further submitted that in fact, the respondent- workman has failed to establish his appointment in the year-1989 and has only made a bald statement that he was engaged on 01.09.1989, however, no evidence in this regard has been produced before the Labour Court. Thus, she has submitted that the award passed by the Labour Court as confirmed by the learned Single Judge, may be set aside.

5. Fervently opposing the present appeal, learned advocate Mr. Paresh J. Brahmbhatt appearing for the respondent-workman has urged that the award passed by the Labour Court and the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge confirming such award, may not be set aside as the same is precisely passed after appreciating the evidence. It is submitted that even if it is assumed that the respondent workman had worked for a very short period, he cannot be denied reinstatement, in case his termination is found to be illegal. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Samishta Dube vs City Board, Etawah and Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 14. While placing reliance on the said judgment, it is submitted that the Labour Court ha