Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1438 (MAD)

D. Micheal v. The Presiding Officer & Another

2003-09-12

A.K.RAJAN

body2003
Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issue of a writ of Certiorari. 2. The petitioner submits that he was employed as casual worker in the second respondent Airport from 1976 to 1981. From 1.12.1981, he was not engaged for the work. Therefore, on 21.12.1981, he sent a letter to the Director of Personnel, Air India International, Bombay, who is not a party in the present proceedings, requesting them to issue necessary direction to the concerned authorities to engage the petitioner as a regular employee. Since no reply was received from the said Director of Personnel, he moved conciliation which also filed. Therefore, he approached the Industrial Tribunal for the relief to make him a permanent employee. 3. The Industrial Tribunal, after giving opportunities for both the parties and after recording the oral as well as documentary evidence, has passed the impugned order. In the impugned order, the Industrial Tribunal has observed as follows: "Further there is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner was employed as a permanent employee or a part time casual labourer in the Respondent/Management. No substantial evidence has been given on the side of the Petitioner/Workman to prove that he is entitled to claim the benefits under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Except the averment in the Claim Statement and the oral evidence of the Petitioner as WW1, there is no substantial documentary evidence to prove that he was placed under suspension by the Respondent/Management on 1.12.1981. So from the available materials it is seen that the petitioner has failed to establish that he was an employee of Air India Ltd., and he was putting sufficient period of employment to claim the benefits of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and he was suspended from the job by the Respondent/Management on 1.12.1981 illegally. So it can be concluded that the Petitioner/Workman was not a permanent or regular employee of the Air India Ltd., and he had not put in 240 days of service as his period of employment to claim the benefits of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence he is not entitled to any relief. Thus, I answer the point accordingly, 6. In the result, an award is passed holding that the Petitioner/Workman Shri D. Michael is not entitled to any relief, as prayed for. Thus, I answer the point accordingly, 6. In the result, an award is passed holding that the Petitioner/Workman Shri D. Michael is not entitled to any relief, as prayed for. No costs." Against the said impugned order, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they had filed a petition to call for the records which were in the possession of the second respondent who sent a reply stating that since all such records were of temporary in nature, they were destroyed by them. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that in such circumstance, an adverse inference has to be taken, and consequently, the petitioner should be considered as having proved that he was working as casual labourer as stated in the petition and, accordingly, the impugned order has to be quashed. 5. No representation for the second respondent. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable. Merely because that the petitioner had filed a petition to call for the documents to prove that he was working as casual labourer/employee for five years and such documents were not produced by the second respondent, no adverse inference can be taken. The onus is on the petitioner to prove his case. The Industrial Tribunal has categorically stated that in the absence of evidence to prove that the petitioner was employed as casual labourer for a minimum period, the benefit of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be made available. 7. There is no irregularity in the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal and hence, the impugned order cannot be set aside. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed accordingly. No costs.