Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Petitioner-employer by means of present writ petition seeks quashing of the award of the Labour Court dated 23rd July, 2011 passed in Adjudication Case No. 51 of 2008, whereunder the Labour Court has answered the reference in favour of the respondent-workman and against the employer.

2. The Labour Court under the award impugned has held that the workman was a seasonal clerk in the employment of the Sugar unit of the petitioner. He had wrongly been denied engagement from the crushing season 2007-08. The Labour Court has therefore directed that the workman shall be entitled to be restored back as seasonal employee with all the consequential benefits.

3. Sri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that for being able to invited for work in the ensuing crushing season, it is necessary for the workman to have established that he had actually worked in the last half of the crushing season in view of Clause K of the Standing Orders covering the condition of Employment of Workmen in Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories in U.P., read with U.P. Payment of Retaining Allowances to Unskilled Seasonal Workmen of Sugar Factories Order, 1972.

4. It is further contended that it was the case of the employer that the workman concerned was not in their employment and he in fact was an employee of the security agency engaged by the petitioner unit. It is also contended that there being no finding qua the workman being out of employment during the period he was disengaged, the direction for payment of full back wages to the workman is unjustified. Lastly he submits that from the records, it was established that the workman was not invited to work in the crushing season 2007-08, as there were allegations of mal practices while discharging duties as weightment clerk, therefore the Labour Court after holding that the workman was an employee of the petitioner should have afforded an opportunity to the employer to bring home the charges before the Labour Court itself for denying the relief of reinstatement.

5. Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel on behalf of respondent-workman in reply points out that it was the categorical case of the workman concerned that he had worked as a seasonal weightment clerk in the employment of the petitioner’s sugar unit in every crushing season commencing from 2004-05 in the entire season and that he was always invited at the start of the crushing season to discharge his duties as such, but for the crushing season 2007-08, which started from 26th November, 2007 work was refused to the seasonal clerk, therefore the present dispute.

6. Sri B.N. Singh Advocate submits that from the evidence brought on record by the workman as well as from the statement of the employer’s witness, namely, Virendra Arora, it was established that the workman was engaged in the entire previous crushing season and therefore the plea taken by the petitioner is misconceived. He further points out that the attendance register and other documents were specifically called for on an application made by the workman. Despite the order passed by the Labour Court, the employer did not produce the relevant documents, which were in their exclusive custody. Therefore an adverse inference has rightly been drawn by the Labour Court. The plea that the workman was engaged in the entire previous crushing season, has gone un-controverted, would necessarily included that he had worked in the later half of the crushing season also and therefore the conditions of Clause K of the Standing Order had been satisfied and the relief of reinstatement needs no interference. He also points out that if the employer wanted to bring home the charge before the Labour Court for relief of reinstatement being refused to the workman concerned, they should have made a proper application for the purpose before the Labour Court for liberty being granted to lead evidence in support of the charges. Such application was never made by the employer and therefor