DECISION This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court ordering re-instatement on an application made under section 25-A, I. R. O.
2. The respondent was in the employment of the appellant. According to the respondent he was in the permanent employment since about a year and when on 18th August, 1976 he went to the office to attend the duty he was prevented and was told that his services had been terminated.
Since the action was taken without any charge-sheet or enquiry he served a grievance notice upon the Management and thereafter approached the Labour Court.
3. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the respondent was a temporary workman employed on 21st May, 1975 and he himself did not attend the duty after 15th August, 1975.
4. On the basis of the pleadings evidence was led by the parties. On the assessment of the evidence the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was a permanent workman and his services were terminated illegally. He, therefore, ordered re-instatement with the necessary benefits. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
5. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I am unable to uphold the order passed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court in fact placed the entire burden of proof upon the appellant with regard to the date of appointment and the removal from service. He failed to consider the important documents which had been produced. According to him a photostat copy of the extract of payment register showing the payment w. e. f. 16th May, 1975 was produced and, therefore,[ this did not indicate when the appointment was made as the registers maintained prior to that date were not produced. This statement does not appear to be correct as the registers received from the Labour Court showed the payments which had been made to the various workers prior to 16th May, 1973 f. e. w. e. f. 1st December, 1974. The name of the respondent does not appear in the payment register during the period prior to 16th May, 1975. This register also shows that the last payment made to the respon--dent was on 15th August, 1975. Not only this but even the register of the permanent employees was produced and in this the name of the respondent did not appear. The appellant had produced an application purported to have been made by the respondent for appointment as a temporary worker. Of course it does not bear the date and it was rejected by the Labour Court on the ground that the signature on it was denied by the respondent and it also did not tally with other signatures. I must say that in this also the learned Presiding Officer erred as when the signature on the application was shown to the respondent in the cross- examination, he at first admitted that it was his signature but soon after he resiled as it appears that he took dishonest stand after reading the application indicating that he was seeking the appointment temporarily in place of a worker who had proceeded on leave. I have also compared the various signatures and I am not inclined to agree with the learned Presiding Officer that there had been any manipulation or fabrication of the applicant's signature-by the Management. Since the respondent was a temporary workman, he could be discharged from service, conceding that he had himself not left the service.
6. In the result the appeal is allowed and order of the Labour Court is set aside. The application made under section 25-A stands dismissed.