The MP Electricity Board employed some persons on a daily wage basis. Their employment was terminated on completion of the job. When they were not re-employed, they demanded permanent employment as they had worked 240 days from 1988 to 1992 continuously every year. They contended that such discontinuation amounted to retrenchment. As the board failed to produce the muster rolls, the industrial court, solely on the basis of adverse inference, accepted that they worked for 240 days. The Supreme Court held that mere non-production of muster rolls cannot justify drawing adverse inference against the board, and employees cannot claim permanency (MP Electricity Board vs Hari Ram etc.).
A driver met with an accident, injuring a leg and becoming unfit to drive. The commissioner for workmen?s compensation fixed the sum on 25 per cent disability. The employee contended that since he is not capable of doing the same job after the injury, and being uneducated, was not capable of doing any other job, loss of earning capacity should have been 100 per cent. The Bombay High Court held that an injury which incapacitated him from doing a job would constitute permanent total disablement under Section 4(1)(b) of the Workmen?s Compensation Act (Arjun Gangappa Kore vs Nirmal Bhagchand Bothra).
A bus conductor was fired when it was found he was not issuing tickets. He was directed to be reinstated by the Rajasthan High Court as he was willing to forego his backwages from date of termination to date of reinstatement. But the Supreme Court held that the order does not show that the corporation had agreed to such a proposal. Findings clearly revealed that the conductor?s actions had caused loss of both money and confidence to the corporation. The offer to forego backwages could not be entertained unless the findings were set aside (Regional Manager RSRTC vs Sohan Lal).
SOLON
