Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the termination of the respondent, a daily-wage labourer in the Public Works Department, Wardha, whose services were dispensed with on 21.04.1986 without following the prescribed procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent claimed that he had worked from 22.01.1984 and that his termination violated Sections 25F and 25G of the Act, as two juniors were retained in service. After a delay of more than 11 years, he initiated conciliation proceedings by issuing an approach notice in 1997, leading to a reference to the Labour Court under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the Act. In its written statement, the petitioner-employer specifically pleaded that the records of daily-rated employees were destroyed after five years as per clause 272 of the Public Works Manual, making it impossible to produce them. The respondent gave a notice to produce documents, but the petitioner failed to produce them. The Labour Court drew an adverse inference against the petitioner for non-production, held that the termination was illegal due to violation of Sections 25F and 25G, and directed reinstatement without back wages on 19.04.2005. The petitioner challenged this award before the High Court. The core legal issues were whether the Labour Court was justified in drawing an adverse inference for non-production of records despite the specific plea of destruction under the PWD Manual, and whether the inordinate delay of 11 years in raising the dispute vitiated the claim. The petitioner argued that the delay was fatal and that the records were unavailable due to the destruction policy, rendering the adverse inference erroneous. It relied on Executive Engineer, PWD v. Namdeo Govindrao Nandurkar. The respondent contended that the Labour Court was bound to answer the reference, that the adverse inference was justified because the petitioner failed to produce documents despite notice, and that the denial of back wages adequately accounted for the delay, citing H.D. Singh v. Reserve Bank of India, Shahaji v. Executive Engineer, PWD, and Harjinder Singh v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation. The High Court analyzed the evidence and held that the Labour Court had completely ignored the petitioner's specific stand regarding the destruction of records under clause 272 of the PWD Manual. It noted that because the records were not available due to the destruction policy, the delay of over 11 years had caused material prejudice to the employer by rendering evidence unavailable. The court distinguished the Harjinder Singh case on the ground that there the employer had been accused of tampering with records, whereas here the employer had justified non-production through a clear policy. Consequently, the High Court ruled that the adverse inference drawn by the Labour Court was unsustainable, and the finding of violation of Sections 25F and 25G based solely on that inference could not stand. The writ petition was allowed, the Labour Court's award dated 19.04.2005 was set aside, the interim order directing payment of last drawn wages under Section 17B was to operate till the date of judgment, and the amounts deposited by the petitioner were permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Adverse Inference - Non-production of Records - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 25F, 25G - Labour Court drew adverse inference against employer for not producing records despite notice, ignoring employer's plea that records destroyed after five years per PWD Manual clause 272; High Court held that adverse inference unsustainable as delay of 11 years rendered evidence unavailable and employer specifically pleaded destruction; Labour Court's finding of violation of Sections 25F and 25G based solely on adverse inference cannot stand (Paras 9-13, 14). B) Labour Law - Reinstatement - Relief and Delay - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 10 - Workman raised dispute after 11 years; Supreme Court in Executive Engineer v. Namdeo and Shahaji v. Executive Engineer held that delay can be fatal if evidence is lost, and relief can be moulded; High Court held that delay caused prejudice due to destruction of records, and Labour Court's order of reinstatement is unsustainable; award set aside (Paras 10, 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court was justified in drawing an adverse inference against the petitioner for non-production of records and declaring termination illegal after a delay of over 11 years, in light of the destruction of records policy under clause 272 of the Public Works Manual.
Final Decision
The writ petition was allowed; the Labour Court's award dated 19.04.2005 was set aside; the interim order for payment of last drawn wages under Section 17B was to operate till the date of judgment; amounts deposited by the petitioner were permitted to be withdrawn by the respondent; no costs.
Law Points
- Delay in seeking reinstatement can be fatal if it results in material evidence being unavailable
- Adverse inference cannot be drawn against employer for non-production of records when justified by destruction policy under PWD Manual
- Relief can be moulded in case of delay
- Non-compliance with Sections 25F and 25G of Industrial Disputes Act alone does not warrant reinstatement without considering delay and loss of evidence
