days during the preceding 12 months on daily wages. Upon considering all the material placed on record by the parties to the dispute, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the total number of working days put in by the employee were 184 days and thus he, having not completed 240 days of working in a year, was not entitled to any relief. The Tribunal noticed that neither the management nor the workman cared to produce the muster roll w.e.f. August 1994; that the employee did not summon muster roll although the management had failed to produce them. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the employee filed a writ petition before the High Court which took the view that since the management did not produce the relevant documents before the Industrial Tribunal, an adverse inference should be drawn against it as it was in possession of best evidence and thus, it was not necessary for the employee to call upon the management to do so. The High Court observed that the burden of proof may not be on the management but in case of non-production of documents, an adverse inference could be drawn against the management. Only on that basis, the writ petition was allowed holding that the employee had worked for 240 days. Overruling the decision of the High Court, this Court found on facts of that case that the employee had not adduced any evidence before the court in support of his contention of having complied with the requirement of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act; that apart from examining himself in support of his contention, the employee did not produce or call for any document from the office of the management including the muster roll (MR) and that apart from muster rolls, the employee did not produce the offer of appointment or evidence concerning remuneration received by him for working during the aforementioned period...
