The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the Labour Court's order summoning employment records from the petitioner-employer to prove a workman's service and tenure, holding that the burden of production lies with the employer.
The writ petition challenging the summoning of documents is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
AFR
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27494 of 2021
Petitioner :- M/S S. Goyal Overseas Respondent :- Presiding Officer And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
I. The attendance register being maintained at the establishment, Form No.-12 from 12 December, 2002 to 2016;
II. Bonus disbursal register being maintained by the petitioner-establishment from the year 2010 to 2016;
III. Wage payment register being maintained by the petitioner-establishment from the year 2010 to 2016;
IV. Form No.14 being maintained by the petitionerestablishment from the year 2010 to 2016.
2
establishment.
3
judgement of Delhi High Court rendered in Bliss Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Naseeb Alam , reported at 2016 (148) FLR 124 is distinguishable on facts. In Bliss Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. (supra) , the Court had found that the workman had not worked for 240 days, hence attendance register or the wage register is not required. Here the workman claims that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days. The facts of this case are different.
" 11 . ….Engagement and appointment in service can be established directly by the existence and production of an appointment letter, a written agreement or by circumstantial evidence of incidental and ancillary records which would be in the nature of attendance register, salary registers, leave records, deposit of Provident Fund contribution and Employees' State Insurance contributions etc. The same can be produced and proved by the workman or he can call for and caused the same to be produced and by calling for witnesses who are required to bring and prove these records. The workman should make an appropriate application calling upon the management to call such records in respect of his employment to be produced. In these circumstances, if the management fails to produce such records, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the management and in favour of the workman."
4
misconceived. It is well settled the principle of evidentiary jurisprudence that documents have to be produced by a party which is in possession of them. In the instant case, the documents which are mentioned in the impugned order viz wage register and other registers etc. are liable to be in the possession and custody of the employer. It is noteworthy that the employer has not given any opportunity to the workman to access in the aforesaid documents. The burden of producing the said documents lies squarely on the petitioner-establishment. Failure to do so would invite to the necessary consequences in law.
“ Rule 78(4) . The register shall be preserved for three years after the close of the year to which they relate.”
5
the documents, it would amount to destroying critical pieces of evidence. This again would not reflect poorly on the employer and necessary legal consequences will follow.
Order Date :- 23.10.2021 Ashish Tripathi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether documents relating to employment records can be summoned from the employer to prove the workman's employment and tenure.
Whether an adverse inference can be drawn against the employer for failing to produce employment-related documents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bliss Refrigeration Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Naseeb AlamDistinguished¶21
2016 (148) FLR 124
Automobile Association of India v. P.O. Labour Court-IIRelied on¶22
2006 (3) LLJ 929
M/S S. Goyal Overseas
Presiding Officer, Labour Court
2nd Respondent
3rd Respondent (Workman)
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
