Case Note & Summary
This writ appeal was filed by Catholic Syrian Bank against an order of a single judge who had directed the bank to produce all enquiry proceedings before the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act. The second respondent, Raju Daniel, was an employee of the bank who was terminated in 2013. He filed an appeal under Section 41 of the Act before the competent authority only in 2018, after a lapse of three and a half years. Due to this delay, the bank claimed it was unable to produce the complete enquiry proceedings, though it asserted that all such proceedings had been duly served on the employee at the relevant time. The single judge directed the bank to produce all enquiry proceedings, and aggrieved by this direction, the bank preferred the writ appeal. The core legal issue was whether the burden of producing documents in such an appeal rests on the employee-appellant or the employer. Counsel for the bank contended that the employee’s inordinate delay frustrated the bank’s ability to gather old records and that the employee, having participated in the enquiry and having been served with all proceedings, was in a position to produce them. The employee argued that he had already filed some documents. The Division Bench held that the burden of proof lies on the person who files an appeal; it is for the employee to produce the relevant documents to establish his case. Since the employee had the proceedings in his possession, he could not shift the burden to the employer. Consequently, the direction requiring the bank to produce all enquiry proceedings was set aside, and the second respondent was directed to produce all documents available with him. The writ court’s direction for expeditious disposal of the appeal was confirmed. The appeal was disposed of with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Appeal under Shops and Establishments Act - Burden of Proof - Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, Section 41 - The employee filed appeal challenging termination after a delay of three and half years; the employer argued inability to produce enquiry proceedings due to delay but had served them on the employee. Held: The burden of proof lies on the person who files the appeal; thus, the employee must produce all available documents to establish his case. The direction that the employer produce enquiry proceedings is set aside; the direction to conclude proceedings expeditiously is confirmed. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the employer or the employee bears the burden to produce enquiry proceedings in an appeal under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947, especially when the employee filed the appeal after a delay.
Final Decision
The writ appeal was allowed to the extent of setting aside the direction requiring the appellants (Bank) to produce all enquiry proceedings. Instead, the second respondent (employee) was directed to produce all available documents. The direction for expeditious disposal was confirmed. No costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- burden of proof on appellant
- employee must produce documents to establish case
- direction to employer to produce enquiry proceedings set aside
- delay in filing appeal by employee
