Balu v. Presiding Officer and Ors

INoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANAoATo CHANDIGARHo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooCWP-16767-2023o(O&M)ooo DateoofoDecision:o04.08.2023o o BALUo oo o o o o ooo…Petitionero o Versuso PRESIDINGoOFFICER,oINDUSTRIALoTRIBUNAL-CUM-o LABOURoCOURT-III,oFARIDABADoANDoOTHERSo ooo…Respondentso o CORAM:oo HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoHARSHoBUNGERo Presento:o Mr.oDeepakoSonak,oAdvocateo forotheopetitioner.o o o HARSHoBUNGER,oJ.o(ORAL)oo o Petitioner-workmano(Baluos/ooSohanoLal)ohasofiledothisopetitiono undero Articleso 226/227o ofo theo Constitutiono ofo India,o foro issuanceo ofo ano appropriateo writ,o ordero oro directions;o especiallyo ao writo ino theo natureo ofo certiorarioforosettingoasideotheoimpugnedoawardodatedo31.01.2023o(Annexureo P-3)opassedobyorespondentoNo.1-PresidingoOfficer,oIndustrialoTribunal-cum-LabouroCourt-III,oFaridabad;owherebyotheoreferenceoofotheoindustrialodisputeo hasobeenodecidedoagainstohim.oAofurtheroprayerohasobeenomadeoforoissuanceo ofoaowritoinotheonatureoofomandamusoforodirectingotheorespondentsotooreinstateo theopetitionerowithocontinuityoofoserviceoandofullobackowages.o

2.o o Briefly,otheopetitioneroraisedoanoindustrialodisputeoquaohisoillegalo terminationobyoservingoaodemandonoticeodatedo25.01.2017.oThereafter,otheo followingoreferenceowasomadeotootheoLabouroCourtoforoadjudication:o "Whetherothereoexistsoanyorelationshipoofoemployeeoando employero betweeno theo claimanto ando respondents?o Ifoso,o whethero theo terminationo ofo theo serviceso ofo workmanooooooooooooooooo Sh.oBaluoisolegaloandojustifiedooronot?oIfonotoso,otoowhato reliefoheoisoentitledoto?"o

3.o o Asoperotheoclaimostatementofiledobyopetitioner,oheowasoworkingo withorespondent-ForestoDepartmentoasoMazdooroinoReserveoForestoAreaoofo HodalofromoJuly,o1990oandoheocontinuouslyoworkedouptooDecember,o2016o wheno suddenlyo hiso serviceso wereo terminatedo ino ano illegalo ando arbitraryo manneroadoptingounfairolabouropractice.oItowasostatedothatoduringotheolongo tenureoofo26oyearsoofohisoservice,otheoStateoofoHaryanaohasoframedoPolicyoofo regularizationoofoemployees,owhoowereohavingoserviceoofomoreothano10oyearso inohis/herocredit,obutotheorespondentsohaveoneveroconsideredotheonameoofotheo petitioner,o whoo remainedo aso dailyo wagero duringo thiso tenure.o Petitionero allegedo exploitationo ando claimedo thato thougho theo respondent-Foresto departmentoiso liableotooregularizeohimo aso heofulfillso theo criteria,ohowevero whenotheopetitioneroaskedofororegularizationoofohisoservicesothenohisoserviceso wereo terminated.o Petitionero statedo thato earliero respondentso wereo payingo wagesotoohimoonoMusteroRollobutolateroon,otheyostoppedopaymentoonoMustero Roll.oPetitioneroclaimedothatohisoterminationoisoillegal,ounjustifiedoandoagainstoo principlesoofonaturalojusticeoandocontraryotootheoprovisionsoofotheoIndustrialo DisputesoAct,o1947o(inoshorto`theo1947oAct').oAccordingly,otheopetitionero prayedothatoheomayobeoreinstatedowithofullobackowagesoandocontinuityoofo service.o

4.o o Ono theo othero hand,o theo respondent-Foresto department,o contestedo o theo o claimo o ofo o theo o petitionero byo filingo itso replyo wherein,oooooooooooooooooo inter-alia,otheofollowingostandowasotakeno:-o a)k Theo o petitionero waso o nevero appointedo againsto o o anyoregularopost;o b)k Theo o petitionero haso o noto beeno engagedo foro allo o o twelveo precedingo calendaro monthso continuously c)k Theo petitionero o haso o noto o workedo foro 240o dayso o o ino o twelveo o precedingo o calendaro o monthso fromo o o theo dateo ofo disputeo (Decembero 2016)o witho theo o o respondent-department.o d)k Theo petitioner-workmano waso nevero appointedo o o aso Mazdooro ino Reserveo Foresto Areao ofo Palwal o o fromooJuly,o2003oooandooneverooworkedooupoootoo o o Decembero2016,oasoallegedobyopetitioner;oo e)k Thereowasonoorelationoofoemployeroandoworkmano o o betweeno o theo o petitionero o ando o theo respondent-o o department;o f)k Theo o Foresto o Departmento o adoptedo pieceo rateo o o contractosystemofromotheoyearo2003oandodoesonoto o o engageo o labouro o directly.o Theo worko o iso o eithero o o executedo througho villageo Foresto Committeeo oro o o throughocontractors.o g)k Theo claimanto (petitioner)o througho contractoro oro o throughooovillageooooForestooooCommitteeooalongwithoo o otheropersonsoworkedowithobreaksoasounder:o-o Sr.oNo.o Cr.oVr.oNo.o Monthoofo Amounto Paidotoo No.oofo Worko Paido Dayso 1o 23Hoofo 03/2008o 6500o Baluo&o 25o 03/2008o Partyo 2o 25Hoofo 05/2008o 10000o Baluo&o 30o 07/2008o Partyo o Totaloofo2008o o o o 55o 1o 17Hoofo 06/2014o 9200o Baluo&o 30o 08/2014o Partyo 2o 19Hoofo 07/2014o 19400o Baluo&o 31o 07/2014o Partyo 3o 19Hoofo 10/2014o 36200o Baluo&o 30o 02/2015o Partyo 4o 25Hoofo 11/2014o 18300o Baluo&o 30o 02/2015o Partyo o Totaloofo2014o o o o 121o 1o 77Hoofo 03/2015o 11900o Baluo&o 25o 03/2015o Partyo 2o 33Hoofo 06/2015o 6150o Baluo&o 30o 08/2015o Partyo 3o 104Hoofo 07/2015o 18600o Baluo&o 31o 08/2015o Partyo 4o 35Hoofo 08/2015o 3100o Baluo&o 13.5o 09/2015o Partyo 5o o 10/2015o 2394o Baluo&o 10.5o Partyo o Totaloofo2015o o o o 110o 1o 3Hoofo05/2016o 01/2016o 6415o Baluo&o 28o Partyo 2o 12Hoofo 02/2016o 7200o Baluo&o 28o 04/2015o Partyo 3o o 07/2016o 2450o Baluo&o 8o Partyo 4o o 12/2016o 4900o Baluo&o 16o Partyo o Totaloofo2016o o o o 80o h)k Theoregularizationopoliciesowereowithdrawnobyotheo o o GovernmentoofoHaryana.o

5.o o Fromo theo pleadingso ofo theo parties,o theo learnedo Labouro Courto framedotheofollowingoissues:o "1.o Whetherootheoservicesooofoootheoworkmanowereo o o terminatedoillegally?oIfoso,otoowhatoreliefoheoiso o o entitledoto?oOPWo

2.o Whetherooothereooexistsooonoooorelationshipoooofo o o employeeoandoemployerobetweenotheoworkmano o o andorespondents?oOPRo

3.ooo Whetherotheopresentoclaimoisobadoonoaccountoofo o o nonoojoiningoofotheoVillageoForestoCommitteeo o o andotheocontractors,owithowhom,otheoworkmano o o hadooworked,ooasooallegedooinoparaono.5oofotheo o o preliminaryoobjectionsoofotheowrittenostatement?o o o OPRo

4.ooooo Relief."o

6.o o Inoorderotooproveohisocase/claim,otheopetitioner/workman-Balu,o examinedo himselfo aso WW1o ando alsoo examinedo oneo Vikramo (summonedo witness)o aso WW2o ando reliedo upono theo followingo documentso ino hiso documentaryoevidenceo:-o Sr.o Exhibito Documento No.o 1o W1o Copiesoofomusterorollo 2o W2o CopyoofofailureoreportoO/ooAssistanto LabouroCommissioner,oPalwal.o 3o W3o Copyoofostatementsoofowitnessesoando recordo producedo beforeo Labouro CourtoinocaseotitledoasoPremoPalovso D.F.O.oPalwal&oothers.o 4o WW2/1o Copyoofoletterodatedo06.07.2000oforo implementationo ofo contracto systemo inoForestoDepartmento(Haryana).o 5o WW2/2o Copyo ofo FIRo datedo 05.01.2017o lodgedobyoDivisionaloForestoOfficer.o 6o WW2/3o Copyo ofo certificateo issuedo byo DivisionaloForestoOfficer,oPalwal.o o o Thereafter,o theo petitioner-Workmano closedo hiso evidenceo ono

20.01.2022.o

7.o o Ono theo othero hand,o theo respondentso haveo examinedo oneooooooooooooooooo RamanoKumaroForestoRanger,oForestoDepartment,oPalwaloasoRW1oandohaveo alsooadducedofollowingodocumentsoinotheirodocumentaryoevidenceo:-o Sr.oNo.o Exhibit/so Documento 1o R1o&oR2o Copieso ofo attendanceo recordo ofo Balluo alongwitho copieso ofo casho book.o 2o R3o Copyo ofo certificateo issuedo byo Sh.o K.C.o Meena,o I.F.S.o Chairmano Foresto Developmento Agencyo alongwitho listo ofo Villageo Foresto Committees.o 3o R4o Copiesoofobills.o 4o R5o Copyoofoletterodatedo06.07.2000oforo implementationo ofo contracto systemo inoForestoDepartment,oHaryana.o 5o R6o Copyo ofo memoo No.4295-FT-5-2003/23462odatedo22.10.2003.o o o o Thereafter,otheorespondentsoevidenceowasoclosedoono10.11.2022.o

8.o o Videoimpugnedoawardodatedo31.01.2023o(AnnexureoP-3)opassedo byoLearnedoPresidingoOfficer,oLabouroCourt-III,oFaridabad;otheoreferenceoofo theoindustrialodisputeohasobeenodecidedoagainstotheopetitioner-workman.o

9.o o Beingoaggrievedoagainstotheoimpugnedoawardodatedo31.01.2023o (AnnexureoP-3)oibid,otheopetitionerohasofiledotheoinstantowritopetition.o

10.o o Learnedocounseloforotheopetitionerowhileoreiteratingotheostandoofo theopetitionero beforeo theo Labouro Court,osubmittedo thatotheopetitionero waso appointedo ono dailyo wageo basiso ino theo respondent-Foresto departmento aso Labourero (Mazdoor)o ino theo yearo 1990o ando heo continuouslyo workedo tillo December,o2016,owhenosuddenlyohisoservicesowereoterminatedoinoanoillegalo andoarbitraryomannerowithoutofollowingotheomandatoryoprovisionsoofotheoAct,o 1947.o Heo submitso thato theo petitionero workedo ino theo respondent-Foresto departmentoforomoreothano240odaysoinoprecedingo12omonthsofromotheodateoofo hisoterminationoinoDecembero2016.oItoisosubmittedothatotheopetitionerohaso workedo continuouslyo ino theo departmento fromo theo dateo ofo hiso initialo appointmentoandoheowasoappointedodirectlyoandoalwaysoworkedounderotheo directocontroloandosupervisionoofotheorespondent-departmentoandopaymentotoo theopetitionerowasoalwaysomadeobyorespondent-department.oItoisocontendedo thato theo petitionero nevero workedo undero anyo contractoro oro Villageo Foresto Committee.oItoisostatedothatotheopetitioneroworkedoforomoreothano240odaysoino theo lasto 12o monthso precedingo hiso terminationo ando noo propero attendanceo register/MusteroRollowasomaintainedobyorespondent-departmentonoroanyosucho recordowasoproducedobyotheorespondent-department.oItoisofurtherocontendedo thatoinotheoabsenceoofoanyocontractobetweenotheocontractor/VillageoForesto Committeeo ando respondent-department,o theo workmano iso ano employeeo ofo departmento noto ofo theo contractor.o Ito iso alsoo contendedo thato ano adverseo inferenceo shouldo haveo beeno drawno againsto respondent-departmento foro noto producingo record.o Accordingly,o counselo foro theo petitionero prayso thato theo impugnedo awardo datedo 31.01.2023o (Annexureo P-3)o passedo byo Learnedo Presidingo Officer,o Labouro Court-III,o Faridabad,o mayo beo seto asideo ando necessaryo directionso mayo beo issuedo foro reinstatemento ofo petitionero witho continuityoofoserviceoandofullobackowages.o

11.o o Iohaveoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopetitioneroandoperusedotheo paper-bookowithohisoableoassistance.o

12.o o Inotheoinstantocase,oitoisotheopleadedocaseoofopetitionerothatoheo wasoappointedoonodailyowageobasisoinotheorespondent-Forestodepartmentoaso Labourero (Mazdoor)o ino theo yearo 1990o ando heo continuouslyo workedo tillo December,o2016,owhenosuddenlyohisoservicesowereoterminatedoinoanoillegalo andoarbitraryomannerowithoutofollowingotheomandatoryoprovisionsoofotheoAct,o 1947.oThus,oinoorderotooseekoreliefoinotermsoofoSectiono25FoofotheoAct,o1947,o theopetitionero waso requiredo too proveo thato heo workedo foro 240o dayso ino theooooooooooooooooo 12omonthsoprecedingotheodateowhenoheowasoallegedlyoillegallyoterminatedobyo respondent-Foresto Department.o Therefore,o theo relevanto periodo wouldo beoooooooooooooo 12o monthso prioro too December,o 2016.o Ino ordero too dischargeo theo onuso ofo provingotheoaforestatedofactoofohavingoworkedoforo240odaysoinotheo12omonthso precedingotheodateoofohisoallegedlyotermination,otheopetitionerogaveohisoowno testimonyo ando alsoo examinedo oneo Vikramo buto dido noto leado anyo othero evidenceoinotheoformoofoproofooforeceiptoofosalaryoorowagesoforo240odaysooro anyoorder/recordoofoappointmentooroengagementoforotheorelevantoperiod.oItoiso wellosettledolawothatomereoaffidavitsooroself-servingostatementsomadeobyotheo claimant/workmanowillonotosufficeoinotheomatteroofodischargeoofotheoburdeno placedobyolawoonotheoworkmanotooproveothatoheohadoworkedoforo240odaysoinoao givenoyear.oInothisoregard,oreferenceocanobeomadeotootheojudgmentorenderedo byoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoofoIndiaoinotheocaseoofoMunicipaloCorpn.ov.oSirio Niwas,o2004(4)oS.C.T.o211,owherein,otheoHon'bleoApexoCourtoheldoasounder:o "12.oTheoprovisionsoofotheoIndianoEvidenceoActoperoseoareo GURPREET KAUR notoapplicableoinoanoindustrialoadjudication.oTheogeneralo principleso ofo ito are,o however,o applicable.o Ito iso alsoo imperativeo foro theo Industrialo Tribunalo too seeo thato theo principleso ofo naturalo justiceo areo compliedo with.o Theo burdenoofoproofowasoonotheorespondentohereinotooshowo thato heo hado workedo foro 240o dayso ino precedingo twelveo monthso prioro too hiso allegedo retrenchment.o Ino termso ofo Sectiono 25Fo ofo theo Industrialo Disputeso Act,o 1947,o ano ordero retrenchingo ao workmano wouldo noto beo effectiveo unlesso theo conditionso precedento thereforo areo satisfied.o Sectiono 25-Fo postulateso theo followingo conditionso too beo fulfilledobyoemployeroforoeffectingoaovalidoretrenchmento:o

(i)o oneo month'so noticeo ino writingo indicatingo theo reasonsofororetrenchmentoorowagesoinolieuothereofo:o

(ii)opaymentoofocompensationoequivalentotoofifteeno dayso averageo payo foro everyo completedo yearo ofo continuousoserviceooroanyopartothereofoinoexcessoofo sixomonths.o

13.o Foro theo saido purposeo ito iso necessaryo too noticeo theo definitionoofo'ContinuousoService'oasocontainedoinoSectiono 25-BoofotheoAct.oInotermsoofosub-sectiono(2)oofoSectiono25-Bothatoifoaoworkmanoduringoaoperiodoofotwelveocalendaro monthso precedingo theo dateo witho referenceo too whicho calculationoisotoobeomade,ohasoactuallyoworkedounderotheo employero240odaysowithinoaoperiodoofooneoyear,oheowillobeo deemedotoobeoinocontinuousoservice.oByoreasonoofotheosaido provision,o thus,o ao legalo fictiono iso created.o Theo retrenchmentoofotheorespondentotookoplaceoono17.5.1995.o Foro theo purposeo ofo calculatingo aso too whethero heo hado workedoforoaoperiodoofo240odaysowithinooneoyearooronot,oito was,otherefore,onecessaryoforotheoTribunalotooarriveoatoao findingoofofactothatoduringotheoperiodobetweeno5.8.1994otoo

16.5.1995oheohadoworkedoforoaoperiodoofomoreothano240o days.oAsonoticedohereinbefore,otheoburdenoofoproofowaso onotheoworkman.oFromotheoAwardoitodoesonotoappearothato theo workmano adducedo anyo evidenceo whatsoevero ino supporto ofo hiso contentiono thato heo compliedo witho theo requirementsoofoSectiono25BoofotheoIndustrialoDisputeso Act.o Aparto fromo examiningo himselfo ino supporto ofo hiso contentionoheodidonotoproduceoorocalloforoanyodocumento fromo theo officeo ofo theo Appellanto hereino includingo theo musterorolls.oItoisoimprobableothatoaopersonoworkingoinoao Localo Authorityo wouldo noto beo ino possessiono ofo anyo documentaryo evidenceo too supporto hiso claimo beforeo theo Tribunal.oApartofromomusterorollsoheocouldohaveoshowno theotermsoandoconditionsoofohisoofferoofoappointmentoando theoremunerationoreceivedobyohimoforoworkingoduringotheo aforementionedo period.o Heo eveno dido noto examineo anyo otherowitnessoinosupportoofohisocase.oo

14.oAoCourtoofoLawoevenoinoaocaseowhereoprovisionsoofo theoIndianoEvidenceoActoapply,omayopresumeooromayonoto presumeo thato ifo ao partyo despiteo possessiono ofo theo besto evidenceohadonotoproducedotheosame,oitowouldohaveogoneo againstohisocontentions.oTheomatter,ohowever,owouldobeo differentowhereodespiteodirectionobyoaocourtotheoevidenceo isowithheld.oPresumptionoasotooadverseoinferenceoforonon-productionoofoevidenceoisoalwaysooptionaloandooneoofotheo factorsowhichoisorequiredotoobeotakenointooconsiderationo ino theo backgroundo ofo factso involvedo ino theo lis.o Theo presumption,o thus,o iso noto obligatoryo becauseo notwithstandingo theo intentionalo non-production,o othero circumstanceso mayo existo upono whicho sucho intentionalo non-productionomayobeofoundotoobeojustifiableoonosomeo reasonableo grounds.o Ino theo instanto case,o theo Industrialo Tribunalodidonotodrawoanyoadverseoinferenceoagainstotheo Appellant.o Ito waso withino itso jurisdictiono too doo soo particularlyohavingoregardotootheonatureoofotheoevidenceo adducedobyotheoRespondent.oo

15.oNooreasonohasobeenoassignedobyotheoHighoCourtoasotoo whyo theo exerciseo ofo discretionalo jurisdictiono ofo theo Tribunalowasobadoinolaw.oInoaocaseoofothisonature,oitoiso trite,o theo Higho Courto exercisingo theo powero ofo judicialo review,o wouldo noto interfereo witho theo discretiono ofo ao Tribunalo unlesso theo sameo iso foundo too beo illegalo oro irrational…"o

13.o o Further,oinotheocaseoofoSurendranagaroDistrictoPanchayatov.o Dahyabhaio Amarsinh,o 2005(8)o SCCo 750,o Hon'bleo Apexo Courto heldo aso under:o "19.oInotheolightoofotheoaforesaid,oitowasonecessaryoforotheo workmanotooproduceotheorelevantomaterialotooproveothato heohaso actuallyo workedo withotheo employeroforonoto lesso thano240odaysoduringotheoperiodotwelveocalendaromonthso precedingotheodateoofotermination.oWhatoweofindoisothato aparto fromo theo oralo evidenceo theo workmano haso noto producedo anyo evidenceo too proveo theo facto thato heo haso workedoforo240odays.oNooproofooforeceiptoofosalaryooro wageso oro anyo recordo oro ordero ino thato regardo waso produced;o noo co-workero waso examined;o mustero rollo producedobyotheoemployerohasonotobeenocontradicted.oItoiso improbableothatoworkmanowhooclaimedotoohaveoworkedo witho theo appellanto foro sucho ao longo periodo wouldo noto possessoanyodocumentaryoevidenceotooproveonatureoofohiso engagementoandotheoperiodoofoworkoheohadoundertakeno withohisoemployer.oTherefore,oweoareoofotheoopinionothato theoworkmanohasofailedotoodischargeohisoburdenothatoheo wasoinoemploymentoforo240odaysoduringotheoprecedingo12o monthso ofo theo dateo ofo terminationo ofo hiso service.o Theo Courtsobelowohaveowronglyodrawnoanoadverseoinferenceo forononoproductionoofotheorecordoofotheoworkmanoforoteno years.oTheoscopeoofoenquiryobeforeotheoLabouroCourtowaso confinedo too onlyo 12o monthso precedingo theo dateo ofo terminationo too decideo theo questiono ofo continuationo ofo serviceoforotheopurposeoofoSectiono25FoofotheoIndustrialo DisputesoAct.oTheoworkmanohasoneverocontendedothatoheo wasoregularlyoemployedoinotheoPanchayatoforooneoyearotoo claimo theo uninterruptedo periodo ofo serviceo aso requiredo underoSectiono25B(1)oofotheoAct.oInotheofactoandosituationo andoinotheolightoofotheolawoonotheosubject,oweofindothatotheo workman-respondentoisonotoentitledoforotheoprotectionooro complianceoofoSectiono25FoofotheoActobeforeohisoserviceo waso terminatedo byo theo employer.o Aso regardso non-complianceoofoSectionso25Goando25Hosufficeoisotoosayothato witnesso Vinodo Mishrao examinedo byo theo appellanto haso statedo thato noo seniorityo listo waso maintainedo byo theo departmento ofo dailyowagers.o Inotheo absenceooforegularo employmento ofo theo workman,o theo appellanto waso noto expectedo too maintaino seniorityo listo ofo theo employeeso engagedoonodailyowagesoandoinotheoabsenceoofoanyoproofo byotheorespondentoregardingoexistenceoofotheoseniorityolisto andohisosoocalledoseniorityonooreliefocouldobeogivenotoohimo foronon-complianceoofoprovisionsoofotheoAct.oTheoCourtso couldo haveo drawno adverseo inferenceo againsto theo appellantoonlyowhenoseniorityolistowasoprovedotoobeoino existenceo ando theno noto producedo beforeo theo Court.o Ino orderotooentitleotheoCourtotoodrawoinferenceounfavourableo tootheoparty,otheoCourtomustobeosatisfiedothatoevidenceoiso inoexistenceoandocouldohaveobeenoproved…"o

14.o o Further,o video impugnedo awardo datedo 31.01.2023o (Annexureoooooooooooooooo P-3),olearnedooPresidingoOfficer,ooLabourooCourt-III,oFaridabad;oohasooreturnedoo theofollowingofindings:-o o o "15.o Onoappreciationoofotheoevidenceoledobyobotho theo partieso ando aftero hearingo theo rivalo contentionso ofo learnedoARsoforotheoparties,otheopositionowhichoemergesoiso thatoitoisotheocaseoofoclaimantothatoheowasoappointedoaso "Mazdoor"obyotheorespondentsoinotheoReserveoForestoAreao ofo Hodal,o Palwalo ino theo yearo 1990o ando heo hado workedo continuouslyo tillo Decembero 2016o ando thereaftero hiso servicesowereoterminatedobyorespondentsoinoanoillegaloando arbitraryo manner.o Ono theo othero hand,o accordingo too theo respondents,oclaimantowasoneveroengagedodirectlyobyotheo respondents.o Heo hado nevero beeno appointedo ono anyo sanctionedo post.o Rathero heo hado workedo witho theo respondentsoeitherothroughocontractorsoorothroughoVillageo Foresto Committees.o Respondentso alsoo claimedo thato theo claimantohadonotoworkedowithotheorespondentsoforoaoperiodo ofo240odaysoprecedingotwelveocalendaromonthsofromotheo dateoofohisoallegedotermination.o o o Itoisowellosettledolawothatotheoonusoofoprovingotheo relationshipo ofo employeeo ando employero ando continuouso workingo ofo 240o dayso duringo twelveo calendaro monthso immediatelyo precedingotheodateoofo illegalo terminationoofo service,oliesouponotheoworkman.o o o 16otoo21.o xxxo o xxxo o xxxo o o 22.oo Ino viewo ofo theo aboveo discussedo legalo position,o nowo ito iso too beo seeno whethero theo claimanto haso succeededo too proveo theo relationshipo ofo employeeo ando employerobetweenohimo&otheorespondentsoandowhetheroheo hadoworkedowithorespondentsoforo240odaysoinoprecedingo12o calenderomonthsofromotheoallegedodateoofoterminationoofohiso serviceso byo theorespondents.o ThisoCourto findso thatoaparto fromo hiso ownooralotestimonyoaso WW1,o claimantohaso noto producedo anyo othero cogento ando satisfactoryo oralo oro documentaryoevidenceowhichocouldoproveotheofactothatoheo hadoworkedowithorespondentsoonodailyowagesosinceoyearo 1990o tillo Decembero 2016o oro thato heo hado workedo continuouslyoforoaoperiodoofo240odaysoinoaoyearoprecedingo dateo ofo hiso allegedo terminationo byo theo respondents.o Noo doubtothatoclaimantohasoalsooexaminedooneootherowitnesso VikramoS/ooSatbiroSingh,ohoweveroheoisoaoformalowitnesso fromotheoofficeoofoD.F.O.oPalwalowhoohadoproducedotheo summonedorecord.oClaimantohasoalsooprovedophotocopieso ofomusterorollocardsoforotheoyearo2001o&o2002oasoEx.W1.o Howeveroexecutantsoofotheseomusterorollocardsohaveonoto beeno examinedo byo claimant.o Therefore,o theseo documentso areonotodulyoprovedoonorecord.oThereoisonooadmissionoofo respondentso witho respecto too theseo mustero rollo cards.o Thereforeotheseodocumentsocannotobeolookedointooevidenceo beingonotodulyoproved.oNooappointmentoletter,owagesoslipo oro recordo ofo engagemento ofo claimanto byo theo Foresto Departmentoinoyearo1990ohasobeenoproducedoonorecordobyo theo claimant.o Ito iso improbableo thato claimanto whoo haso claimedothatoheohadoworkedowithotheorespondentsoforosucho aolongoperiodowouldonotopossessoanyodocumentaryoproofoofo hisoengagementoandoperiodoofoworkoheohadounderotakeno withohisoemployer.oEvenonooco-workerohasobeenoexaminedo byo theo claimanto ino supporto ofo hiso claim.o Statemento ofo claimanto ino theo shapeo ofo affidavito Ex.WW1/Ao cannoto beo heldo sufficiento evidenceo too comeo too theo conclusiono thato claimantowasoengagedobyotheorespondentsoinotheoyearo1990o orotatoheohadoworkedocontinuouslyowithotheorespondentsotillo Decembero 2016.o Workmano duringo hiso cross-examinationo admittedo thato heo iso noto havingo anyo identityo cardo oro appointmentoletteroissuedobyotheodepartmento(Forest).oHeo furtherostatedothatoheowasonotoappointedoonoanyopostobyotheo ForestoDepartment.oHowever,oheovoluntarilyostatedothatoheo hadoworkedoasoao"Mazdoor".oHeofurtheroadmittedothatoheo hasonotoworkedoonoanyosanctionedopostoinotheoDepartment.o o o Onotheootherohandorespondentsohaveoprovedodetailso ofoattendanceorecordoofoclaimantofromoyearo2007-08otillo yearo 2016-17o (preparedo aso pero casho book)o alongwitho copiesoofocashobookoasoEx.R1o&oEx.R2.oAoperusaloofotheo sameo revealso thato presento claimanto hado workedo witho respondentsoduringoperiodoMarcho2008otooDecembero2016o eithero througho contractorso oro througho Villageo Foresto Committees.o Heo hado nevero workedo continuouslyo foro 240o daysoinoanyoyear.oInotheoyearo2016,oheohadoworkedoonlyoforo 80odays.oWW2oVikramocategoricallyostatedothatotheorecordo prioro too yearo 2002o waso stoleno fromo theiro office.o Ino thiso regardo departmento hado lodgedo FIRo No.08o datedo

05.01.2017o ino Policeo Stationo Palwal.o Ito iso pertinento too mentiono thato claimanto hado filedo demando noticeo ono

25.01.2017o whereaso FIRo waso lodgedo ono 05.01.2017o i.e.o priorotootheofilingoofodemandonoticeobyotheoclaimant.o o o Itohasobeenoprovedoonorecordofromotheoevidenceoledo byotheorespondentsothatoasoperotheodirectionsoofoHaryanao Government,oafterotheoyearo2003oaopieceorateoofocontracto systemo waso adoptedo byo theo Foresto Departmento ando theo worko waso beingo executedo eithero througho contractorso oro througho Villageo Foresto Committees.o Necessaryo entrieso wereobeingo madeobyo theo Foresto Departmentoino theo casho bookoafteromakingopaymentoasoperotheodetailsosubmittedoofo theo contractors/Villageo Foresto Committees.o Thereo iso nothingo ono recordo too suggesto thato attendanceo recordo ofo claimantoproducedobyorespondentsoisofalseoandofabricated.o Hence,othereoisonooreasonotoodisbelieveotheosame.o o o 23.o Inoviewoofomyoaboveodetailedodiscussion,othiso Courtoconsidersothatotheoevidenceoledobyotheoworkmanoiso notoatoallosufficientotooproveohisocase/claim.oWorkmanohaso failedo too produceo anyo cogento ando satisfactoryo evidenceo whichocouldoproveothatoheowasoengagedobyotheorespondentso asodailyowageolaboureroasoperomusterorollsosystemoinoyearo 1990o ando heo continuouslyo workedo tillo Decembero 2016.o Claimantohasofailedotooproveothatothereowasorelationshipoofo employeeo ando employero betweeno theo claimanto ando respondents.o Heo haso alsoo failedo too proveo thato heo hado workedocontinuouslyoforoaoperiodoofo240odaysoinotwelveo calendaro monthso precedingo theo dateo ofo hiso allegedo terminationobyotheorespondents.oThus,oheoisonotoentitledotoo theoprotectionoofoSectiono25-FoofotheoI.D.oAct.oAccordingly,o issueoNo.1oisodecidedoagainstotheoclaimantoandoinofavouroofo respondentso ando issueo no.2o iso decidedo ino favouro ofo respondentsoandoagainstotheoclaimant."oo

15.o o Asoregardsotheopleaoofotheopetitionerothatoadverseoinferenceobeo GURPREET KAUR drawnoagainstorespondent-departmentoforonotoproducingoMusteroRolls,oitoiso observedothatoapartofromotheobareopleaoofonon-productionoofomusterorollobyo respondent-department;othereoisonoopleaoofotheopetitionerothatorespondent-departmentohasosuppressedotheorelevantorecord.oInotheoabsenceoofosuchopleaoofo suppression,o noo adverseo inferenceo cano beo drawno againsto respondent-department.o Ino thiso regard,o referenceo cano beo madeo too theo judgmento ofo Hon'bleo Apexo Courto ino R.M.o Yellattio v.o Theo Asst.o Executiveo Engineer,o 2005(4)oS.C.T.o695,owhereinoitohasobeenoheldoasounder:o "15…Theoaboveodecisionsohoweveromakeoitoclearothatomereo affidavitso oro self-servingo statementso madeo byo theo claimant/workmano willo noto sufficeo ino theo mattero ofo dischargeoofotheoburdenoplacedobyolawoonotheoworkmanotoo proveothatoheohadoworkedoforo240odaysoinoaogivenoyear.oTheo aboveo judgmentso furthero layo downo thato mereo non-productiono ofo mustero rollso pero seo withouto anyo pleao ofo suppressiono byo theo claimanto workmano willo noto beo theo groundo foro theo tribunalo too drawo ano adverseo inferenceo againstotheomanagement.oLastly,otheoaboveojudgmentsolayo downo theo basico principle,o namely,o thato theo Higho Courto underoArticleo226oofotheoConstitutionowillonotointerfereowitho theo concurrento findingso ofo facto recordedo byo theo labouro courtounlessotheyoareoperverse.oThisoexerciseowillodependo uponofactsoofoeachocase…"o

16.o o Itoisotriteothatothisocourt,oinosuchomatters,oexercisesocertiorario jurisdiction,o theo peripherieso ofo whicho stando authoritativelyo delineatedoooooooooooooooooo ino theo followingo classico expositionso foundo ino Syedo Yakoobo v.oooooooooooooooooo K.oS.oRadhakrishnan,oAIRo1964oSupremeoCourto477o:o "7.oTheooquestionoaboutootheoolimitsooofootheojurisdictionoofo HighoCourtsoinoissuingoaowritoofocertiorariounderoArticleo 226ohasobeenofrequentlyoconsideredobyothisoCourtoando theo trueo legalo positiono ino thato behalfo iso noo longero ino doubt.oAowritoofocertiorariocanobeoissuedoforocorrectingo

errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard, to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an Appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The

adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised.

¶8It is, of course, not easy to define or adequately describe what an error of law apparent on the face of the record means. What can be corrected by a writ has to be an error of law; it must be such an error of law as can be regarded as one which is apparent on the face of the record. Where it is manifest or clear that the conclusion of law recorded by an inferior Court or Tribunal is based on an obvious mis-interpretation of the relevant statutory provision, or sometimes in ignorance of it, or may be, even in disregard of it, or is expressly founded on reasons which are wrong in law, the said conclusion can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In all these cases, the impugned conclusion should be so plainly inconsistent with the relevant statutory provision that no difficulty is experienced by the High Court in holding that the said error of law is apparent on the face of the record. It may also be that in some cases, the impugned error of law may not be obvious or patent on the face of the record as such and the Court may need an argument to discover the said error; but there can be no doubt that what can be corrected by a writ of certiorari is an error of law and the said error must, on the whole, be of such a character as would satisfy the test that it is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. If a statutory provision is reasonably capable of two constructions and one construction has been adopted by the inferior Court or Tribunal, its conclusion may not necessarily or always be open to correction by a writ of certiorari. In our opinion, it neither possible nor desirable to attempt either to define or to describe adequately all cases of errors which can be appropriately described as errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Whether or not an impugned error is an error of law and an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record, must always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and upon the nature and scope of the legal provision which is alleged to have been misconducted or contravened." o '7(o o ,oootheropointohaso+eenour%ed(o '?(o o Bheno theo factso ando circumstanceso ofo thiso caseo ando alsoo theo findin%soreturnedo+$otheolearnedo!ndustrialo.ri+unaloareoconsideredoinotheo li%htoofotheole%alopositionoindicatedoa+otie"o!odoonotofindoan$oille%alit$ooro infirmit$owithotheoimpu%nedoawardodatedo&'()'(2)2&o(Anne*ureoP-&)"owhicho ma$o callo foro an$o interferenceo +$o thiso ourt"o whileo e*ercisin%o itso writo 3urisdiction(oAccordin%l$"otheoinstantowritopetitionoisodismissedoinolimine(o '9(o o Allopendin%oapplication/s"oifoan$"oshalloalsoostandoclosed(o o thAugust 4 , 2023 (HARSH BUNGER)