The main legal point established is that in a labor dispute, the failure to produce relevant documents can lead to adverse inferences, and challenges to the Labour Court's award must be based on the grounds raised before the Labour Court.

Heard Sri S. D. Singh, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri B.N. Singh, Advocate on behalf of the workman and Standing Counsel on be#31;half of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. Petitioner employer seeks quash#31;ing of the award of the Labour Court dated 26th July, 2011 passed in Adjudication Case No, 1 of 2009.

3. Facts in short leading to the present writ petition are as follows:

The State Government in exercise of powers under Section 4-K of the Indus#31;trial Disputes Act, by notification dated 4-12-2008, referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court, Saharanpur:

@ Hindi @

4. The workman in support of his claim filed a written statement as well as reply to the statement of the employer and also appeared as witness in support of his claim. It was his categorical claim that he was employed as Seasonal Weighment Clerk in the sugar unit of pe#31;titioner employer in the crushing season 2006-07. In the crushing season 2007-08 also he was similarly engaged, but all of sudden on 20-2-2008 his services were put to an end without assigning any rea#31;son and without holding any enquiry. Ac#31;cording to the workman, he being sea#31;sonal employee could not be so dis--missed and therefore the termination be#31;ing illegal he is entitled for reinstatement as a seasonal employee.

5. The employer in their written state#31;ment denied the relationship of master and servant between the workman and the pe#31;titioner and it was their case that the pe#31;titioner in fact was employed through a security service and he was not in actual engagement of sugar unit.

6. Workman, for establishing that he had actually worked in the crushing sea#31;sons 2006-07 and 2007-08 up to the date of termination, made an application for at#31;tendance register and other documents being summoned from the employers, which were in their exclusive possession. The Labour Court passed an order on the application of the workman on 4-11 -2009 and required the employer to produce the attendance register etc. The petitioner em#31;ployer did not produce the attendance reg#31;ister and other documents, on the plea that the workman is not their employee, no attendance register is available. The Labour Court vide order dated 10-12-2009 recorded that since the documents re#31;quired under order dated 1 -11 -2009 have not been produced by the employer, an adverse inference shalf be drawn against the employer.

7. The Labour Court, after consider#31;ing the material evidence brought on record, including the written statement and the evidence of the workman as well as the written statement of the employer and the evidence of Sri Rajendra Pal Singh, Supervisor of M/s. Royal Body#31;guard Service, has recorded a categori#31;cal finding that the workman was in ac#31;tual employment of sugar unit and he was not an employee of M/s. Royal Bodyguard Service. The Labour Court has gone on to hold that since the employer deliber#31;ately did not produce the attendance reg#31;ister, as was asked for by the workman concerned, an adverse inference had to be drawn. It has recorded that the work#31;man has worked in the crushing seasons 2006-07 and 2007-08 till the date of ter#31;mination of his services.

8. The Labour Court has found that the termination of the services of the sea#31;sonal employee like the petitioner being orally is bad and has further proceeded to hold that the workman being seasonal employee had to be reinstated as sea#31;sonal employee.

9. Sri S. D. Singh, Counsel for the petitioner employer contends that for the relief of reinstatement as seasonal em#31;ployee being granted it was but neces#31;sary that the workman should have es#31;tablished that he had worked in the sec#31;ond half of the preceding crushing sea#31;son in view of the Standing Orders cover#31;ing the Condition of Employment of Work#31;man in Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories in U.P. For the purpose he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Sugar Cor