Executive Engineer, Parikalp Khand v. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the

6. Aggrieved by the award, the Petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, praying for quashing of the impugned award and for a direction of reinstatement in service.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Labour Court erred in discarding the testimony of the Petitioner and the supporting affidavits of co-workers. Once oral and affidavit evidence was led, the burden shifted to the Respondent to produce muster rolls or departmental records, which it failed to do.

8. It was contended that in industrial adjudication, strict provisions of the Evidence Act and Civil Procedure Code are not applicable, and the matter should be decided on principles of equity and preponderance of probabilities.

9. Counsel submitted that the delay in raising the dispute could not have been a ground to decline relief outright. The Petitioner had specifically stated that if reinstated, he would not claim back wages owing to the delay.

10. It was also urged that the Labour Court treated the dispute as if it were a civil suit, placing the entire burden of proof on the Petitioner, which is contrary to the benevolent spirit of labour laws.

11. Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner utterly failed to discharge the initial burden of proving that he was employed with the department between 1986 and 1990. No muster rolls, wage slips, or official documents were produced. Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3472 of 2016, Manoj Kumar v. Executive Engineer, Parikalp Khand 2 Ashish Naithani J.

12. It was urged that the affidavits relied on by the Petitioner were not proved in accordance with law and that even the witness Phool Singh admitted he had not worked in the divisional office, making his statement unreliable.

13. It was further contended that the delay of 24 years in raising the dispute was wholly unexplained and fatal to the Petitioner’s claim. Entertaining such stale disputes would unsettle settled rights and prejudice the Respondent.

15. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and Perused the records. The scope of this Court under Article 227 is supervisory, not appellate. Interference is warranted only if the award suffers from perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error.

16. The Petitioner claims engagement as a daily wager from

01.05.1986 to 27.06.1990 and alleges illegal retrenchment thereafter. However, he has not produced any primary documentary evidence such as muster rolls, wage slips, or any order of appointment or termination. His case primarily rests on oral testimony and affidavits of co-workers.

17. In the present case, the affidavits of three individuals were produced, and one of them, Phool Singh, was examined as WW-2. However, his statement does not inspire confidence, as he admitted that he had not worked in the divisional office of the Respondent. The Labour Court, therefore, found such evidence insufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship.

18. The Respondent, on its part, consistently denied that the Petitioner was ever engaged. It asserted that no records exist to show his employment. Indeed, an adverse inference may sometimes be drawn if an employer withholds records. Still, such a principle applies only after the workman discharges his initial burden, which has not been done satisfactorily in this case.

19. On the aspect of delay, the dispute was raised after nearly 24 years. Though delay by itself is not invariably fatal in labour disputes, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3472 of 2016, Manoj Kumar v. Executive Engineer, Parikalp Khand 3 Ashish Naithani J. it remains a significant factor, particularly where records are unavailable and evidence has faded. The Labour Court was justified in treating the unexplained delay as undermining the claim.

20. Having considered the award, this Court finds that the Labour Court applied its mind to the evidence, recorded reasons for disbelieving the Petitioner’s claim, and relied upon authoritative precedent. The findings are neither perverse nor based on no evidence.

21. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as an appellate forum. In the absence of any material irregularity or jurisdictional error, the award does not call for interference. ORDER For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no infirmity in the award dated 01.10.2016 passed by the Labour Court, Haridwar, in Adjudication Case No. 53 of 2015, published on

23.11.2016. In exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned award. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Dated:25.08.2025 (Ashish Naithani J.) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3472 of 2016, Manoj Kumar v. Executive Engineer, Parikalp Khand 4 Ashish Naithani J.