MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, FARIDABAD versus SIRI NIWAS

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 145 · Decided: 06-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

,_ 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATOIN, FARIDABAD 
v. 
SIRI NIWAS 
SEPTEMBER 6, 2004 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
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 
A 
B 
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. 
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. 
F 
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. 
F 
In appeal to this Court, Appeal submitted that the High Court 
committed a serious error in law insofar as_ it allowed the writ petition 
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 NIW AS 
14 7 
the principles of n

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.