JUDGMENT :

Paresh Upadhyay, J.

(Prayer: Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the order dated 26.07.2021 made in W.P.No.37242 of 2005.)

1. Challenge in this appeal is made by the workman to the order dated 26 July 2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.No.37242 of 2005, allowing the writ petition filed by the Management -State Road Transport Corporation.

2. Heard the learned advocates.

3. Learned advocate for the appellant (workman) has submitted that, interference by learned Single Judge in the award passed by the Labour Court was not justified, since the Labour Court had, on the basis of the evidence placed on record arrived at the conclusion that, discontinuance of service of the workman was illegal and relief was granted. It is submitted that in the writ petition filed by the Management, learned Single Judge set aside the award inter alia on the ground that the workman had caused accidental death, he was not regular employee and under the wrong premise that the documents are available with the Management, the employee filed the petition and obtained adverse finding against him. It is submitted that the award of the Labour Court could not have been interfered with on these grounds. It is submitted that the order of learned single Judge be set aside and this appeal be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the first respondent/Management (original writ petitioner), at the outset had submitted that, the workman was terminated after due inquiry. When it was asked, what is the date of termination order and the date of inquiry report, if it is on record, it was sought to be canvassed that since the workman had not completed 240 days, it was discharge simplicitor. It is under these circumstances, the case of the workman needs to be examined. Learned advocate for the first respondent/Management has contended that the Labour Court had wrongly shifted the burden on the Management and therefore that part is rightly interfered with by learned Single Judge and no interference be made in this writ appeal. It is submitted that this appeal be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record, this Court finds as under:-

5.1. The discontinuance of service of the workman was the subject-matter of reference under the Industrial Disputes Act in I.D.No.103 of 2001 which was allowed vide award dated 28 February 2005.

5.2. We have considered the reasons recorded by the Labour Court, while allowing the said reference. We find that both sides had placed on record material/evidence available with them. The workman had discharged his obligation. The Management could have disputed the said evidence of the workman, by producing appropriate record. The case of the Management before Labour Court was that, the said record is destroyed by them, may be as per Rules. Non-production of evidence by the Management should not put the concerned workman at the receiving end. The Labour Court, in this factual background, rightly arrived at the conclusion that the workman had discharged his obligation and there was no legally sustainable contest against it. On the basis of this fact and evidence, the Labour Court passed an award granting relief to the workman. We find that the Labour Court can not be said to have committed any error, which would have called for any interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The error in the impugned order recorded by learned Single Judge therefore needs to be corrected.

5.3. We also find that, learned Single Judge has, while setting aside the award inter alia recorded his satisfaction as under:-

4. ..... For that purpose, he has filed a petition to call for the documents from the employer and the employer has filed a counter stating that those documents have been destroyed in terms of the Rules, which has been accepted by the labour Court and the petition for production of the documents has been rejected. Hence, when the employee