Kesar Bai v. Assistant Engineer, Public Works Department, Sub-Division

: Mr. Kailash Chander Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharad Joshi, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL 29/04/2025 Order This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 13.09.2019 passed by the learned Labour Court, Kota (for brevity, 'learned Labour Court') in LCR No.158/1999 whereby, while answering the reference against the petitioner/workman (for brevity, 'workman'), her statement of claim has been dismissed. The relevant facts in brief are that the workman filed a statement of claim against the respondent stating therein that she was appointed as Coolie by the respondent on 01.01.1991 and she was retrenched from service on 01.11.1992 in violation of the provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, 'Act of 1947'). It was, therefore, prayed that the order of retrenchment be quashed and set aside and respondent be directed to reinstate her back in service with all consequential benefits. [2025:RJ-JP:18099] (2 of 3) [CW-21464/2019] The respondent, in its reply, denying the averments made in the statement of claim, submitted that services of the petitioner were hired irregularly on daily wages basis from the month of March, 1991 till February, 1992. It was further submitted that she did not complete 240 days in the relevant calendar year. It was, therefore, prayed that the statement of claim be dismissed. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned Labour Court dismissed the statement of claim vide award impugned dated 13.09.2019. Assailing the award, learned counsel for the workman, submits that the learned Labour Court erred in recording a finding that she has failed to establish to have worked for a period of 240 days in the relevant calendar year in the teeth of Ex. W2, the certificate dated 16.01.1991 issued by the Assistant Engineer, PWD, Sub-Division Chhabra which reflected that she had worked on muster roll from 16.01.1991 to 30.10.1992. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the award impugned dated

13.09.2019 be quashed and set aside and the respondent be directed to reinstate her back in service with all consequential benefits. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, supporting the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard. Considered. While dismissing the statement of claim, the learned Labour Court has recorded a categorical finding that the workman has failed to establish to have worked for a period of 240 days or more in the last calendar year before the alleged date of retrenchment. [2025:RJ-JP:18099] (3 of 3) [CW-21464/2019] With regard to the certificate Ex. W2, it was held that Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, the Assistant Engineer examined by the respondent has categorically stated that the certificate did not belong to the department and he was unaware whose signatures were on it. Further, it is trite law that mere submission of a document in evidence is not sufficient to prove it and its content has to be proved in accordance with law by the party producing it. Indisputably, except tendering the Ex. W2 in her evidence, the workman did not lead any evidence to prove the same. It was further held by the learned Labour Court that while, in her statement of claim and the affidavit, the workman has claimed to have started working from 01.01.1991 whereas, in the Ex. W2, it was shown that she had worked from 16.01.1991 to 30.10.1992 and this material contradiction coupled with the evidence of Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, has rendered the genuineness of the certificate doubtful.. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no reason, under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to interfere with the well reasoned findings recorded by the learned Labour Court based on appreciation of evidence on record. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. PRAGATI/96 (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J