by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also vehemently argued that the Labour Court erred in holding that it could not place reliance on the documents filed by the petitioner since the same were only photocopies and were not put in evidence to the management witness and even the person who maintained the register Ex.WW1/4 and Ex.WW1/5 was not examined by the workman. He submits that while it is true that the petitioner should have filed an application under Section 11 (3) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, seeking direction to the management to produce the originals of the relevant documents, but its omission, cannot be fatal to his case, as the said documents were not rebutted by the management and moreover even the management had also produced only photocopies of documents relied upon by them and the Labour Court has relied on them to pass the award against the petitioner. He, thus, contends that the petitioner had, in fact, through his testimony and the documents on record proved that he had worked till 21.10.1990 at last drawn wage of Rs.1100/- per month and the Labour Court ought to have set aside his illegal termination with consequential benefits.
