JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Heard Mr. Y. S. Mannan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners as well as Ms R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the State Respondents. In spite of service of notice on Respondent No. 3, none has appeared on their behalf. 2. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 3.9.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 6/2002, by which the following issues, which were sent for adjudication, have been answered in favour of the Respondent No. 3-Union. The issues that were raised and adjudicated upon, are as follows: (1) Whether the management of Mancotta T.E. is justified in discontinuing an existing facility, namely free supply of electric bulb to its staff members ? (2)If not whether the management of Mancotta T.E. is liable to revive the said facility with effect from the date of discontinuance or any other relief in lieu thereof ? 3. In the proceeding before the Tribunal, while the Union examined 3 witnesses, the management examined one witness. It appears that no documentary evidence was adduced by either of the parties. 4. Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned Counsel appearing for the management-Petitioner submits that apart from it being a case of no evidence at all to answer the reference in the affirmative, in absence of any agreement by and between the parties for supply of electric bulbs to the workmen, the learned Tribunal could not have answered the reference in favour of the Respondent No. 3-Union. He submits that in absence of any mandate either by way of any Act, Rules or an Agreement arrived at by the between the parties, merely on presumption that there was a prevalent practice of furnishing electric bulbs to the members of the Respondent No. 3-Union, the impugned award dated 3.9.2005 could not have been passed by the learned Tribunal. 5. I have considered the above submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. I have also perused the records of the learned Tribunal. 6. In the proceeding before the Tribunal in respect of the aforesaid dispute, both the parties submitted their written statement. 5. I have considered the above submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. I have also perused the records of the learned Tribunal. 6. In the proceeding before the Tribunal in respect of the aforesaid dispute, both the parties submitted their written statement. In the written statement submitted by the management-Petitioner, it was contended that in absence of any Rules and/or prescribed procedure, it was not the responsibility of the management to supply electric bulbs to the members of the Respondent No. 3-Union or for that matter, the staff of the Tea Estate. Referring to the provisions of the Plantation & Labour Act, it was contended that the management having provided the facility envisaged in the said Act to the staff in absence of any agreement, their could not have been any demand for supply of electric bulbs. 7. In the written statement filed by the Respondent-Union, the stand taken was that the practice of supplying electric bulbs was prevalent in the garden for the last 27 years since 1975 and that suddenly, the management stopped supplying electric bulbs from 1998 without assigning any reason. As per the said written statement, the supply of bulbs was within the meaning of free supply of tea, ration, fuel, foodstuff etc. at a concessional price. However, the written statement is silent as to under what provisions of law, the management was obliged to supply electric bulbs to its staff. 8. In the proceeding before the Tribunal, 3 witnesses examined by the Respondent No. 3-Union reiterated the stand in the written statement about which discussions have been made in the impugned award dated 3.9.2005. S.W. No. 1, one Sri Kiron Chandra Gogoi, in his deposition, stated about the purported supply of electric bulbs to the staff since 1975, which was allegedly stopped from March 1998. According to the said witness, on return of fused bulb, the management used to supply electric bulb to the workers and the Garden Clerk used to record issuance of the same in the register maintained for the purpose. 9. In the cross examination, the aforesaid witness submitted that the workers were required to pay a nominal price for supply of fuel, tea and electricity. He admitted that no document was available to substantiate the claim that the electric bulbs were supplied free of cost. 10. 9. In the cross examination, the aforesaid witness submitted that the workers were required to pay a nominal price for supply of fuel, tea and electricity. He admitted that no document was available to substantiate the claim that the electric bulbs were supplied free of cost. 10. S.W. No. 2, one Sri Durga Sabar, who has been serving in the garden since 1981 also stated in the same line as that of S.W. No. 1. However, in his cross examination, he had stated that he used to purchase electric materials, like bulbs, holders etc. since 1988. It will be pertinent to mention here that as per the stand of the Union, the supply of electric bulbs was stopped from 1998. 11. S.W. No. 3 Sri Girija Shankar Singh, while deposing that he had been serving in the Tea Estate since August, 2000 as a Store Clerk also deposed that he had been serving in the Tea Estate as a Health Assistant since 1981. According to this witness, the supply of electric bulbs was stopped by the management from the year 1998. In his cross examination, he has stated that the bulbs were supplied by the Godown Clerk on the basis of issuance of slip, based on which the Chowkidar used to provide required quantity of bulb. According to this witness, there is no requirement of putting any signature as a mark of receipt of the bulb and that the supply was used to be recorded by the Godown Clerk. He admitted that in the register available with him, there is nothing to show that the management used to supply bulb to its staff. According to this witness, there was a system of maintaining a tally register till the year 1996 and thereafter, the system was abandoned. This witness in his cross examination, admitted that he did not consult the tally register to see as to whether there was anything to show supply of bulb to the staff of the garden. 12. The solitary management witness, M.W. No. 1 Sri Sajan Kumar Agarwal in his deposition flatly denied supply of electric bulbs to the employees of the Tea Estate. He had deposed that there was no system of supply of electric bulbs. This particular stand of the witness could not be dislodged in the cross examination, as would be evident from the statement made by this witness in his cross examination. He had deposed that there was no system of supply of electric bulbs. This particular stand of the witness could not be dislodged in the cross examination, as would be evident from the statement made by this witness in his cross examination. 13. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence on record, the learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh has answered the reference in favour of the Respondent No. 3-Union. In paragraph 9 of the impugned award, the Tribunal has discussed about the aforesaid evidence. Referring to the adjudication to be made, the Tribunal rightly observed that the burden was on the Respondent No. 3-Union to show that there was an existing facility of free supply of electric bulbs to the staff members. The Tribunal solely relied upon the statements made by the 3 witnesses examined on behalf of the Union without, however, appreciating the contradiction extracted during the cross examination. Referring to the deposition of S.W. No. 1 that the Godown Clerk used to provide electric bulbs by recording supply in his register and daily tally book, the Tribunal tilted in favour of the Union without, however, making an endeavour to consult the particular register and/or tally book. In fact and as noted above. It was the specific contention of the management that there was no system prevalent in the garden, under which the management was obliged to supply electric bulbs to the employees. 14. Likewise, the learned Tribunal while referring to the deposition of other witnesses heavily relied upon the purported register maintained by the management regarding supply of electric bulbs, however, in the process, no effort was made to scrutinize the said register which in fact, was never brought on record by the Respondent-Union. The Tribunal having held that the burden was on the Respondent-Union, it was incumbent on its part to see as to whether the Respondent-Union had discharged the said burden in accordance with law. 15. It was a mere case of statement and/or assertion against the statement and/or assertion. While the stand of the Respondent-Union was that the management used to supply electric bulbs since 1975 and had suddenly stopped in 1998, it was the stand of the management that there was no practice prevalent under which the management was required to supply electric bulbs. It is in this context, Mr. While the stand of the Respondent-Union was that the management used to supply electric bulbs since 1975 and had suddenly stopped in 1998, it was the stand of the management that there was no practice prevalent under which the management was required to supply electric bulbs. It is in this context, Mr. Mannan, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that solely on the basis of the alleged prevalent practice, the Respondent-Union could not have contended that the management was obliged to supply the particular material. 16. If there was any prevalent practice of supplying electric bulbs from 1975, the Respondent-Union ought to have produced the order and/or agreement by which such a practice was introduced. A practice, which is said to be supply of electric bulbs free of costs to the staff members could not have come into force without there being any written order and/or any agreement to that effect. Nothing of the sort could be produced on behalf of the Respondent-Union. As noted above, it also could not produce the relevant register. 17. In absence of any agreement by and between the parties and/or provisions of law requiring the management to supply electric bulbs to its staff, the Tribunal solely on the basis of the plea of the staff members that a practice was prevalent, could not have passed the award directing the management to make the particular supply w.e.f. 1.10.2005. On perusal of the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no clinching material to support the plea of the staff of the Tea Estate. It being a case of no evidence at all, I am constraint to hold that the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal in the form of the impugned award is totally perverse. 18. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition merits acceptance and accordingly, is allowed by setting aside and quashing the impugned award dated 3.9.2005 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Dibrugarh in Reference Case No. 6/2002. 19. Registry shall send down the case record to the learned Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment and order. MC 3261 of 2010 IN WP(C) 4893 of 2006 In view of the final order passed in WP(C) No. 746 of 2009, the Misc. Case stands disposed of on 06.01.2011. 19. Registry shall send down the case record to the learned Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment and order. MC 3261 of 2010 IN WP(C) 4893 of 2006 In view of the final order passed in WP(C) No. 746 of 2009, the Misc. Case stands disposed of on 06.01.2011. MC 3194 of 2010 IN WP(C) 6148 of 2002 In view of the final order passed in WP(C) No. 6148 of 2002, the Misc. Case stands disposed of on 05.01.2011. Petition allowed.