ORDER

1. The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner/workman being aggrieved by the Award dated 20.3.2020 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Gwalior whereby compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and backwages, has been awarded.

2. Challenging the Award passed by the Court below, the counsel for petitioner has submitted that the respondent did not file any document to prove that the petitioner, who being appointed as Labour in the Municipal Corporation, Dabra on 20.8.2013 has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year (from 20.8.2013 to 12.7.2015) and as the respondent was in possession of every document, it should had proved that the petitioner has not worked for the said statutory period since it is well established principle of law that if a party, who is in possession of best evidence, fails to produce the same then, an adverse inference is to be drawn against it, but even though it was held that the petitioner was illegally retrenched, he was not reinstated with back-wages. In alternate, it was argued that the compensation in lieu of reinstatement is meagre and it should have been in conformity with the guidelines laid by the apex Court. So far as the compensation in lieu of reinstatement is concerned, the counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177.

3. Per contra, Counsel for the respondent No.2 while supporting the impugned Award, has submitted before this Court that the petitioner had not completed 240 days of his service in a calendar year and in case of termination of a daily wage employee, the reinstatement with backwages is not automatic and instead, the worker should be given monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement, which will meet the ends of justice, which the learned Labour Court had rightly awarded. In the said regard, counsel for the respondent/State had relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Jeetubha Khansangji Jadeja v. Kutchh District Panchayat, decided on 23.9.2022 in Civil Appeal No.6890 of 2022.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. So far as the findings given by the Court below that the termination of the petitioner was illegal, since the respondent being the employer and in possession of the relevant document, had not challenged the said finding to show that the petitioner had not worked for more than 240 days and in wake of well-established principle of law that if a party is in possession of best evidence and fails to produce the same, then an adverse inference can be drawn, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Court below did not commit any mistake by holding that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days.

6. So far as the question of reinstatement with back-wages or with compensation of amount is concerned, the Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal reported in (2014) 7 SCC 177 has held as under:-

"33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious."

7. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Jaya