MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, FARIDABADversusSIRI NIWAS

,_                 MUNICIPAL CORPORATOIN, FARIDABAD                                    A
                                    v.
                               SIRI NIWAS

                                SEPTEMBER 6, 2004

                  [N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.]                               B
          Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Judicial review-Scope a/-
     Industrial Tribunal held that Respondent having not completed 240 days of
     working in a year was not entitled to any relief-Writ petition-High Court
     held that as Appellant did not produce relevant rolls before the Tribunal, an     C
     adverse inference should be drawn against it, as it was in possession of best
     evidence-Only on that basis the writ petition was allowed holding that it
     could be presumed that Respondent had worked for 240 days-On appeal,
     held: Tribunal did not draw any adverse inference against Appellant-It was
     within its jurisdiction to do so particularly in view of the nature of evidence
     adduced by Respondent who failed to place some evidence in support of his         D
     case-High Court erred in setting aside the award of Tribunal only on basis
     of adverse inference drawn against Appellant without assigning any reason
     as to why exercise of discretional jurisdiction of Tribunal was bad in law-
     It passed judgment only on basis of materials relied on by parties before the
      Tribunal-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 25F & 25B-Evidence               E
     Act, 1872-Section ll4(j).

          Labour Law-Retrenchment-Non-compliance of conditions precedent
     as contained in Section 25F of Industrial Disputed Act-Allegations a/-
     Burden of proof on workman.
                                                                                       F
          Labour Law-Industrial Adjudication -Provisions of Evidence Act,
     I872 not applicable-General principles however applicable-Industrial
     Tribunal required to see that principles of natural justice are complied with.

          Respondent claimed that he had worked with Appellant as Tubewell
     Operator from 5.8.1994 to 31.12.1994 and from 1.1.1995 to 16.5.1995.              G
     His services were terminated on or about 17.5.1995 whereupon an
     industrial dispute was raised. State Government made reference before
     the Industrial Tribunal. Case of Respondent before Tribunal was that
     as he had completed working for 240 days in a year, and that his
     retrenchment was illegal as conditions precedent as contained in Section          H
                                           145
    146                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not complied with.              -
         Appellant contended that Respondent had worked only for 136
    days during the preceding twelve months on daily wages and had no lien
    over the said job. Tribunal came to the conclusion that the total number
    of working days of Respondent was 184 days and, thus, he having not
B   completed 240 days of working in a year was no entitled to any relief.
    The Tribunal noticed that neither the Management nor the workman
    cared to produce the relevant muster rolls which was their joint liability,
    and further observed that the workman even did not summon the same
    although the Management had not produced the muster rolls. Respondent
C   being aggrieved by the said Award filed a writ petition before High
    Court.

         High Court was of the view that as Appellant did not produce
    relevant documents before the Industrial Tribunal, an adverse inference
D   should be drawn against it, as it was in possession of the best evidence
    and, thus, it was not necessary for Respondent to call upon the Appellant
    to do so. The High Court furthermore was of the view that burden of
    proof may not be upon Appellant but in case of non-production of the
    documents, an adverse inference could be drawn against it. Only on that
    basis, the writ petition was allowed holding that it could be presumed
E   that Respondent had worked for 240 days. Consequently Respondent
    was directed to be reinstated in service with 75% back wages from the
    date of demand. Hence this appeal.

          In appeal to this Court, Appeal submitted that the High Court
    committed a serious error in law insofar as_ it allowed the writ petition
F   filed by Respondent only on basis of adverse drawn by it for non-
    production of the muster rolls;

          Allowing the appeals, the Court

G        HELD : 1. The High Court committed a manifest error in setting
    aside the award of the Tribunal only on the basis of advers-e inference
    drawn against the Appellants for not producing the muster rolls. [150-E)

         2. The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act per se are not applicable
    on an industrial adjudication. The general principle of it are, however
H   applicable. It is also imperative for the Industrial Tribunal to see that
                MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. SIRI NIWAS                       14 7
-   the principles of natural justice are complied with. (150-F]                 A
         3. The burden of proof was on the Respondent to show that he had
    worked for 240 days in preceding twelve months prior to his alleged
    retrenchment. From the Award it does not appear that the workman
    adduced any evidence whatsoever in support of his contention that he_        B
    had complied with the requirements of S. 25B of the Industrial Disputes
    Act. Apart from examining himself in support of his contention he did
    not produce or call for any document from the office of the Appellant
    including the muster rolls. It is improbable that a person working under
    a Local Authority would not be in possession of any documentary
    evidence to support his claim before the Tribunal. Apart from muster         C
    rolls he could have shown the terms and conditions of his offer of
    appointment and the remuneration received by him for working during
    the aforementioned period (5.8.1994 to 16.5.1995). He even did not
    examine any other witness in support of his case. (150-G; 151-D, E, F)
                                                                                 D,
          4.1. Presumption as to adverse inference for non-production of
    evidence is always optional and one of the factors which is required to
    be taken into consideration in the background of facts involved in the
    lis. The presumption, thus, is not obligatory because notwithstanding
    the intentional non-production, other circumstances may exist upon which
    such intentional non-production may be found to be justifiable on some       E
    reasonable grounds. In the instant case, the Industrial Tribunal did not
    draw any adverse inference against the Appellant. It was within its
    jurisdiction to do so particularly having regard to the nature of the
    evidence adduced by the Respondent. (151-G, H; 152-A, BJ
                                                                                 F
         4.2. No reason has been assigned by the High Court as to why the
    exercise of discretional jurisdiction of the Tribunal was bad in law. In
    a case of this nature, it is trite, the High Court exercising the power of
    judicial review, would not interfere with the discretion of 2 Tribunal
    unless the same is found to be illegal or irrational. (152-B, CJ
                                                                                 G,
         Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das v. Surajanarayan Das and Another,
    AIR (1967) SC 256 and Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain, AIR
    (1975) SC 2299, referred to.

         4.3. Furthermore a party in order to get benefit of the provisions      H
    148                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   in Section 114(t) of the Indian Evidence Act must place some evidence
    in support of his case. Here the Respondent failed to do so. (153-C)

          Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif and Others, AIR (1968)
    SC 1413, distinguished.

B        5. Curiously Respondent produced copies of some muster rolls
    before this Court. If he was in possession .of the said documents, it
    betrays one's imagination as to why the same had not been produced
    before the Tribunal. Respondent filed some documents before the High
    Court but the same were not accepted. The High Court, therefore,
C   proceeded to pass the impugned judgment only on the basis of materials
    relied on by the parties before the Tribunal. (153-G, H]

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1851 of2002.

        From the Judgment and Order dated 3.5 .200 l of the Punjab and Haryana
D   High Court in C.W.P. No. 624 of 2000.

                                        WITH

          C.A. No. 4563 of 2002.

E       Praveen Kumar Rai, Ms. Kavita Wadia and J.P. Dhanda for the
    Appellant.

          D.K. Thakur, B.K. Jha and Debasis Misra for the Respondent.

          The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
          S.B. SINHA, i : Both these appeals involving similar questions of fact
    and law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by
    this common judgment:

G       The factual matrix of the matter, however, is being noticed from Civil
    Appeal No.1851 of 2002.

           The Appellant is in appeal before us being aggrieved by and dissatisfied
    with the judgment and order dated 3.5.2001 passed by the learned Single
    Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP
H   No. 624 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the
       MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. SIRI NIWAS [SINHA, J.]                   149

respondent herein, questioning an Award dated 13.8.1999 passed by the            A,
Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad, was allowed.

       The basic fact of the matter is not much in dispute. The respondent
herein allegedly worked with the Appellant herein from 5.8.1994 to 31.12.1994
as Tubewell Operator. He allegedly further worked from 1.1.1995 to               B
16.5.1995 at Sector 37, Old Zone II. His services were terminated on or about
17.5.1995 whereupon an industrial dispute was raised.

     The Government of Haryana made a reference before the Presiding
Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court I, vide Haryana Government
Endst. No.32410-15 dated 7.10.1995, in exercise of the power conferred by        c
Clause (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 Qf the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 in the following terms:

         "Whether there is justification in the termination of the services of
         Sh. Shri Niwas and if not, to what relief he is entitled to."
                                                                                 D
       The case of the respondent before the Tribunal was that as he had
completed working for 240 days in a year, the purported order of the
retrenchment is illegal as conditions precedent therefor as contained in
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not complied wit~.
The contention of the Appellant herein, on the other hand, was that the said
                                                                                 E
respondent had worked only for 136 days during the preceding twelve
months on daily wages and had no lien over the said job.

        The Tribunal upon considering all the materials placed on records by
the parties to the dispute came to the conclusion that the total number of
working days of the workman was 184 days and, thus, he having not                F
completed 240 days of working in a year was not entitled to any relief. The
 learned Tribunal noticed that neither the Management nor the workman cared
to produce the muster rolls with effect from August, 1994 which was their
joint liability. It was further observed that the workman even did not summon
the sam!! although the Management had not produced the muster rolls.
                                                                                 G
      The respondent being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said Award
filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court which was
marked at CWP No.624 of 2000. Before the High Court the respondent
produced certain documents which do not appear to have been taken on
records.                                                                         H
    150                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A         The High Court opined :

             " ... Be that as it may, respondent in their written statement has
             accepted the fact that the petitioner was kept on L l.l 995 and he
             worked upto 16.9.1995. This span of working period as mentioned
             by the respondent is of course -more than 240 days. The question
B            is whether the petitioner has actually worked for this period or not."

          The High Court, however, was of the view that as the Appellant herein
    did not produce the relevant documents before the Industrial Tribunal, an
    adverse inference should be drawn against it, as it was in possession of the
C   best evidence and, thus, it was not necessary for the first respondent herein
    to-call upon the Appellant to do so. The High Court furthermore was of the
    view that the burden of proof may not be upon the Appellant but in case
    of non-production of the documents, an adverse inference could be drawn
    against him. Only on that basis the writ petition was allowed holding that
D   it could be presumed that the respondent had worked for 240 days.
    Consequently the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with
    75% back wages from the date of demand.

         Mr. Praveen-Kumar Rai, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
    Appellant, would submit that the High Court committed a serious error -of
E   law insofar as it allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein only
    on the basis of an adverse inference drawn by it by non-production of the
    muster rolls.

         Mr. D. K. Thakur, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent,
    on the other hand, would support the judgment of the High Court.
F
          The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act per se are not applicable in
    an industrial adjudication. The general principles of it are, however
    applicable. It is also imperative for the Industrial Tribunal to see that the
    principles of natural justice are complied with. The burden of proof was on
G   the respondent herein to show that he had worked for 240 days in preceding
    twelve months prior to his alleged retrenchment. In terms of Section 25-F
    of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an order retrenching a workman would
    not be effective unless the conditions precedent therefor are satisfied. Section
    25-F postulates the following conditions to be fulfilled by employer for
H   effecting a valid retrenchment :
       MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. SIRI NIWAS [SINHA, J.]                   151'

              (i)   one month's notice in writing indicating·the reasons for     A
                    retrenchment or wages in lieu thereof;

              (ii) payment of compensation equivalent to fifteen days,
                   average pay for every completed year of continuous
                   service or any part thereof in excess of six months.          B
        For the said purpose it is necessary to notice the definition of
'Continuous Service' as contained in Section 25-B of the Act. In terms of
sub-Section (2) of Section 25-B that if a workman during a period of twelve
calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to
be made, has actually worked under the employer 240 days within a period         C
of one year, he will be deemed to be in continuous service. By reason of
the. said provision, thus, a legal fiction is created. The retrenchment of the
respondent took place on 17.5.1995. For the purpose of calculating as to
whether he had worked for a perio~ of 240 days within one year or not, it
was, therefore, necessary for the Tribunal to arrive at a finding of fact that   D
during the period between 5.8.1994 to 16.5.1995 he had worked for a period
of more than 240 days. As noticed hereinbefore, the burden of proof was
on the workman. From the Award it does not appear that the workman
adduced any evidence whatsoever in support of his contention that he
complied with the requirements of Section 258 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Apart from examining himself in support of his contention he did not produce     E
or call for any document from the office of the Appellant herein including
the muster rolls. It is improbable that a person working in a Local Authority
would not be in possession of any documentary evidence to support his claim
before the Tribunal. Apart from muster rolls he could have shown the terms
and conditions of his offer of appointment and the remuneration received by      F
him for working during the aforementioned period. He even did not examine
any other witness in support of his case.

       A Court of Law even in a case where prov1s1ons of the Indian
Evidence Act apply, may presume or may not presume that if a party despite
possession of the best evidence had not produced the same, it would have         G
gone against his contentions. The matter, however, would be different where
despite direction by a court the evidence is withheld. Presumption as to
adverse inference for non-production of evidence is always optional and one
of the factors which is required to be taken into consideration in the
background of facts involved in the !is. The presumption, thus, is not           H
    152                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   obligatory because notwithstanding the intentional non-production, other
    circumstances may exist upon which such intentional non-production may be
    found to be justifiable on some reasonable grounds. In the instant case, the
    Industrial Tribunal did not draw any adverse inference against the Appellant.
    It was within its jurisdiction to do so particularly having regard to the nature
B   of the evidence adduced by the Respondent.

          No reason has been assigned by the High Court as to why the exercise
    of discretional jurisdiction of the Tribunal was bad in law. In a case of this
    nature, it is trite, the High Court exercising the power of judicial review,
    would not interfere with the discretion of a Tribunal unless the same is found
C   to be illegal or irrational.

         In Mahant Shri Srinivas Ramanuj Das v. Surajanarayan Das and
    Another, AIR (l 967) SC 256 this court held :

             "28 .... The Mahant has not come in the witness box. All the
D
             documents have not been produced. In fact it is the plaintiff alone
             who produced a number of documents but he had picked and chosen
             from among the documents in his possession. Some documents
             which could have thrown some light on the question under
             determination have not been produced. It is true that the defendant-
E            respondent also did not call upon the plaintiff-appellant to produce
             the documents whose existence was admitted by one or the other
             witness of the plaintiff and that, therefore, strictly speaking, no
             inference adverse to the plaintiff can be drawn from his non-
             producing the list of documents. The Court may not be in a position
F            to conclude from such omission that those documents would have
             directly established the case for the respondent. But it can take into
             consideration in weighing the evidence or any direct inferences from
             established facts that the documents might have favoured the
             respondent's case."

G        Yet again in Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain, AIR (1975)
    SC 2299,      law has been laid down by this Court in the following
    terms :

             "The third and the last and a subsidiary submission on behalf of the
H            election petitioner, on election expenses was that Shri Dal Bahadur
       MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. SIRI NIWAS [SINHA, J.]                      153

         Singh not having been produced by the original respondent, some           A
         sort of presumption arises against the original respondent. I do not
         think that it is possible to shift a burden of the petitioner on to the
         original respondent whose case never was that Shri Dal Bahadur
         Singh spent any money on her behalf. The case. of M Chyenna
         Reddy v. Ramchandra Rao, (1972) 40 Ele LR 390 at p. 415 (SC)              B
         was relied upon to submit that a presumption may arise against a
         successful candidate from the non-production of available evidence
         to support his version. Such a presumption, under Section 114
         Evidence Act, it has to be remembered, is always optional and one
         of fact, depending upon the whole set of facts. It is not obligatory.''
                                                                                   c
     Further more a party in order to get benefit of the provisions contained
in Section l 14(f) of the Indian Evidence Act must place some evidence in
support of his case. Here the Respondent failed to do so.

       The High Court in support of its judgment has relied upon the decision      D
of this Court in Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif and Others,
AIR (1968) SC 1413, wherein as regards the income from: a Dargah the Court
amongst other evidence took into consideration the fact that the Appellant
in his evidence admitted that he had been enjoying the income of plot in
question but did not produce any account to substantiate his contention.
                                                                                   E
Despite admitting thaf "he had got record of the Dargah Income and that
account was kept separately" the Appellant therein had not produced either
on his own account or the account of the Dargah as to how the income from
the said plot was dealt with. This Court in Gopal Krishnaji case (supra) did
not lay down any law that in all situations the presumption in tenns of Section
 l 14(f) of the Indian Evidence Act must be drawn. The said decision, thus,        F
has no application in the fact of the present case.

       Curiously the respondent produced copies of some muster rolls before
this court. If he was in possession of the said documents, it betrays one's
imagination as to why the same had not been produced before the Tribunal.          G
As indicated hereinbefore, he filed some documents before the High Court
but the same were not accepted. The High Court, therefore, proceeded to
pass the impugned judgment only on the basis of the materials relied on by
the pa1ties before the Tribunal. The High Court, in our opinion, committed
a manifest error in setting aside the award of the Tribunal only on the basis      H
    154                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   of adverse inference drawn against the Appellant for not producing the
    muster rolls.

         For the foregoing reasons the impugned judgments are not sustainable
    in law and they are set aside accordingly.

B        These appeals are allowed. In the facts and circumstances of this case,
    there shall be no order as to costs.

    B.B.B.                                                    Appeals allowed.