The duty of the management to produce relevant documents and the interpretation of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

S.Vaidyanathan, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal No.116 of 2023 filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 09.04.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.19213 of 2003 on the file of this Court.

The issue involved in these Appeals is one and the same and therefore, these appeals are disposed of by a Common Judgment. For the sake of brevity, the gist of the issue is being taken from W.A.No.116 of 2023. The parties are referred to as 'Management' and 'Workmen' for the purpose of convenience.

2. Management has preferred these appeals against the order of the learned Single Judge, in and by which reinstatement was granted to Workmen with continuity of service and other attendant benefits, but without back-wages. While modifying the Award of the Labour Court, the Management was directed to complete the exercise of employment within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of the learned Single Judge. It is seen that Workmen have not filed any appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge.

3. Management has not disputed the employment of Workmen under them, as they admitted during cross-examination that the employees were in service between 1980 and 1997 and also admitted the availability of Muster Roll with them in proof of the same. For the best reasons known to the Management, M.W.1 has not produced the Muster Roll before the Labour Court. Similarly, even though M.W.1 has admitted that there were cheque books available, which was the basis for payment of daily wages to these employees, counterfoils in respect of those cheque books also have not been produced before the Labour Court.

4. The Labour Court, after analyzing the evidence on record, held that when the documents are with the Management, they cannot keep those documents just close to the chest and they should produce the same before the Tribunal / Labour Court for proper adjudication. When similar issue arose, this Court, in the case reported in MANU/TN/6723/2021 (The General Manager, Indian Bank vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and others), while referring to the judgment of the Apex Court and this Court, held as under:

“4.....the decision of the Two Judges' Bench of Supreme Court, cited by the Bank in the case of Range Forest Officer Versus S.T.Hadimani reported in (2002) 3 SCC 25, holding that initial burden of proof is with the Workman to establish that he / she had completed required period of service, was rendered at that relevant point of time and subsequently, the Three Judges' Bench of Apex Court in the case of R.M.Yellatti vs Assistant Executive Engineer reported in (2006) 1 SCC 106 shifted burden on the employer to prove that the Workman had not worked for 240 days continuously. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:

“13.... In the present case, the defence of the management was that although Ex.W1 refers to the period 22.11.1988 to 20.6.1994, the workman had not worked as a daily wager on all days during that period. If so, the management was duty bound to produce before the labour court the nominal muster rolls for the relevant period, particularly when it was summoned to do so. We are not placing this judgment on the shitting of the burden. We are not placing this case on drawing of adverse inference. In the present case, we are of the view that the workman had stepped in the witness box and his case that he had worked for 240 days in a given year was supported by the certificate (Ex.W1). In the circumstances, the division bench of the High Court had erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact.”

9. The next contention of the Bank was that even if it is taken that the Employee worked as a Casual Worker, no document has been produced by the Employee to prove that she had completed 240 days in a period of 12 Calendar month. When the documents are with the Bank, it is the duty on the part of the Bank to produc