Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Employee Ram Ratan in his statement has categorically stated that the log book is maintained at every pump where the operator is supposed to sign. Even the employer witness R.K. Singh in his cross-examination has admitted that two registers were being maintained at every tubewell, one is known as bleaching register and the other is log book. The pump operators are provided bleaching powder which is being mixed in the water supplied from the pump. The signature of the Assistant Engineer of particular region where bleaching powder is provided, is supposed to sign on the bleaching register and the pump operator has to sign in the log book at the particular pumping station which he operates. The service of the employee is computed by the said log book.

The Presiding Officer of the labour court, in the case of Ram Ratan, in his award dated 12.12.2003 has recorded that the log books for the year 1992-93 and 1994-95 of Indira Nagar pumping house No.1 were to be produced by the employer. The photocopy of the log book from the year 1992 to 1995 and bleaching powder issue register 1993-94 were produced through list 15-B(1) which were neither attested by any competent officer nor contain stamp or on the proforma of the employer establishment. As such the veracity of these documents cannot be established. In so far as the case of the employer that no log book was provided to the workman Ram Ratan and bleaching powder was not issued for the Indira Nagar Pump, the labour court while considering the contention of the employer has recorded that admittedly there is system of adding bleaching powder before supply of the water the employer had failed to give any explanation as to why the same was not issued at Indira Nagar Pumping House and in case the log book was not provided to the respondent employee then to whom the same was provided and who was the pump operator at the said pumping station during the aforesaid period. Looking into facts and circumstances of the matter, the labour court had come to the conclusion and that respondent employee remained in continuous employment in the petitioner establishment with effect from 1.4.1992 till the date of his termination i.e. 1.10.1994. Provision of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applicable in the case of the muster roll, has not been followed by the employer, hence employee is entitled for reinstatement with effect from date of reference made by the State Government i.e. 13.5.1997. It was further held that employee is entitled for arrears of salary from 13.5.1997 till the date of reinstatement.