2004 (9) TMI 692 - SC - Indian Laws

Termination of services of a Tubewell Operator - Compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act - burden of proof on the workman - adverse inference due to non-production of documents - discretion of the Industrial Tribunal - HELD THAT - 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 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. A Court of Law even in a case where provisions 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 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 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 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. 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 to be illegal or irrational. 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. As indicated hereinbefore he filed some documents before the High Court but the same were not accepted. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts ruling that the adverse inference drawn against the Appellant for non-production of documents was not sufficient to justify the decision. The Court emphasized the need for proper evidence and documentation in industrial disputes and the importance of considering all factors before drawing adverse inferences. The appeals were allowed and no costs were awarded in this case.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the termination of services of a Tubewell Operator, compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, burden of proof on the workman, adverse inference due to non-production of documents, discretion of the Industrial Tribunal, and judicial review by the High Court.

Termination of Services and Compliance with Section 25F:
The respondent's services were terminated, leading to an industrial dispute. The Government of Haryana made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal to determine the justification of the termination. The Tribunal found that the workman had not completed 240 days of work in a year, as required by Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act for a valid retrenchment.

Burden of Proof and Adverse Inference:
The respondent claimed to have worked for over 240 days, but the burden of proof was on him to establish this. The High Court allowed the writ petition based on an adverse inference against the Appellant for not producing relevant documents. The Court emphasized the importance of evidence in industrial adjudication and the need for the workman to support his claims with documentation.

Discretion of the Industrial Tribunal and Judicial Review:
The Industrial Tribunal's discretion in drawing adverse inferences was highlighted, with the Court stating that such inferences are not obligatory and must be considered in the context of the case. The High Court's interference with the Tribunal's discretion was deemed unjustified unless found to be illegal or irrational. The judgment cited precedents to emphasize the importance of evidence production and the discretionary powers of the Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts, ruling that the adverse inference drawn against the Appellant for non-production of documents was not sufficient to justify the decision. The Court emphasized the need for proper evidence and documentation in industrial disputes, and the importance of considering all factors before drawing adverse inferences. The appeals were allowed, and no costs were awarded in this case.