Adverse inference can be drawn against employers for withholding evidence that could substantiate workers' claims for regular employment, necessitating reconsideration of their claims.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the Award dated 21.7.2011(Annexure-12); whereby the dispute in question referred to the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad has been answered against the present petitioners.

3. The factual matrix is that the petitioners are working under the respondent on various post of class-IV being appointed between the period of 1990–1994. Furthermore, the stand of the petitioners is to the effect that they are working in different posts, which are of permanent nature, including exchange maintenance, cable maintenance, line maintenance, store maintenance, PCM, maintenance, etc. continuously under the direct control and supervision of the respondent.

The petitioners have claimed that the respondent had directly employed them. According to them, the works they were engaged to perform were of permanent and perennial nature and their jobs were directly connected with the operations and crucial to the functioning of the respondents.

It has been further narrated that the petitioners have put in more than 240 days of attendance in each year and the same is disputed by the organization.

4. Learned Industrial Tribunal had come to a finding that these workers/petitioners had been working directly under the supervision and control of the respondent authorities, but negated their claim on the ground that there is no cogent evidence to the fact that they had worked for more than 240 days in a year. Further in regards to issue of certain employees who had worked for more than more than 240 days for them, the Learned Industrial Tribunal had passed an order to the effect that in case a fresh appointment process is undertaken, their cases may also be considered.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Award, the present application has been filed.

5. The basic grounds taken by the petitioners are twofold:

a. An application was moved before the conciliating authority, and the same was also filed before the Industrial Tribunal to the effect that there were certain documents in form of AC – II register, which was in possession of the respondent authorities which may be called for.

b. Adverse inference was required to be drawn to the fact that the vital documents as well as crucial evidence were not produced in order to throw light on the fact at issue.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application was filed for calling for records, which could have thrown light on the fact as to the period of service of the petitioners with the respondent authorities. No orders thereto were passed to that extent; nor those documents were placed on record.

Further, it has been asserted that in the cross-examination of MW –1 (Annexure-8) which is the management witness, it has been categorically said by the witness:-

“It is fact that the SDO telecom had engaged the workmen in the field and it is also fact that the workmen were paid their wages from CG – 17 Accounts Establishment, Accounts General. It is the SDO telecom who was the competent authority to pay the workmen. Their wages can say about the period of their engagement.”

“I cannot, but the SDO field office can tell whether the aforesaid work are of permanent nature. I cannot say, but the SDO can tell which of the workman, were engaged, in which job. I don’t have personal know