Worker identity disputes must be decided on probabilities; adverse inference may follow non-production of employer records, with reinstatement ordered.

Where workers' status had already been conclusively determined, the remaining question was only identity. The Court held that identity could be proved on available records and probabilities, not by strict Evidence Act standards, and drew adverse inference against the employer for withholding primary records such as muster rolls and pay registers. The Tribunal's blanket rejection of the claimants' identity was set aside. Properly identified workers were directed to be reinstated forthwith, and partial back wages at 70% of normal earnings were awarded for the period after the earlier deadline until reinstatement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that none of the 287 claimant workmen had established their identity as workmen covered by the earlier adjudication concerning the 464 Siliguri depot workers. (ii) Whether the identified workmen were entitled to reinstatement and back wages.

Issue (i): Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that none of the 287 claimant workmen had established their identity as workmen covered by the earlier adjudication concerning the 464 Siliguri depot workers.

Analysis: The earlier decision had already settled that the 464 persons in the list were workmen of the Corporation and that the only further exercise was identification. The materials before the Tribunal included identity cards issued by the Corporation, permit slips, ration cards, and certificates, while the Corporation withheld primary records such as muster rolls, pay sheets, provident fund deduction records, and related registers. The Court held that the Tribunal approached the matter as if strict proof under the Evidence Act was required, whereas the issue had to be decided on available material and probabilities. In the circumstances, adverse inference arose against the Corporation for non-production of the best evidence, and the Tribunal's blanket rejection of identity was found to be palpably erroneous.

Conclusion: The Tribunal's finding rejecting the identity of the claimant workmen was set aside and was not sustained against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the identified workmen were entitled to reinstatement and back wages.

Analysis: Since the earlier adjudication had already held that the listed workers were the Corporation's workmen, the only remaining step was proper identification. The Court directed that persons properly identified by the Union in the manner prescribed should be reinstated forthwith. As no back wages had been granted earlier and the prolonged delay was attributed to the Corporation, the Court awarded back wages at 70% of normal earnings from the expiry of the period fixed in the earlier order till reinstatement.

Conclusion: The identified workmen were held entitled to reinstatement and to back wages at 70% of normal earnings for the specified period.

Final Conclusion: The award of the Tribunal was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with directions for identification, reinstatement of the covered workmen, and payment of partial back wages, along with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the status of workers had already been conclusively determined and the remaining dispute was only one of identity, the adjudicating body had to assess the materials on a preponderance of probabilities and could draw adverse inference from non-production of the employer's primary records.

---