Labour Court that they never worked directly with the petitioner after 1986 and that they were working through a contractor, details of which were not given as to how and in what manner they were being paid their salary. In Writ Petition No.864/2001, the writ-petitioner has produced on record a chart indicating that respondent-workman Ashok Kumar worked with the petitioner for 126 days in 1986-87 and one day in 1987-88 and 26 days in 1991-92. In Writ Petition No.5280/2000, respondent-workman Mahesh Sharma similarly worked for 63 days in 1985-86 and 51 days in 1991. It is contended that Labour Court has although recored the finding that respondents failed to give any specific details about the contractor nor he has impleaded such contractor as party nor any such documents were produced or summoned. Labour Court also held that dispute has been raised after enormous delay. In order to cover up the delay workmen in both the claimed that they worked for the petitioner till 31.12.1992, even than, the findings on the question of violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act have been recorded singularly on the premise that petitioner in spite of having failed to produce documents or records relating to respondents-workmen.
