Gujarat High Court
Priyankaben Hansrajbhai Trada vs Manager, Rajkot Nagrik Sahakari Bank ... on 7 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8482/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8482 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
PRIYANKABEN HANSRAJBHAI TRADA
Versus
MANAGER, RAJKOT NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK LTD
==========================================================
Appearance:
KRISHNAN M GHAVARIYA(8133) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 07/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is passed under article 226 and 227 of constitution of India thereby challenging the order passed by the learned labour court Rajkot below Exh. 34 dated 06.05.2025 whereby the present petitioner was directed to produce the copy of the income tax return and acknowledgment receipt for the financial year 2020- 2021 and 2023-2024.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that petitioner was appointed as a Junior Executive (Trainee) with effect from 01.06.2012 and on completion of five years Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 23:35:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8482/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined satisfactory period, her services were confirmed as a Junior Officer with effect from 30.07.2019 in the pay scale of 14706-39425. The petitioner was transferred to Bhuj branch of the respondent bank on 30.09.2019. It is alleged by the present petitioner that after holding departmental inquiry, the dismissal order was passed on 04.12.2021 which was challenged before the learned labour court by filing the reference which was numbered as Special Civil Application No. 19 of 2021. In the said reference the respondent appeared and filed written statement and petitioner has filed the application praying to decide the legality and validity of the departmental inquiry as a preliminary issue which came to be allowed on 17.08.2022. Learned labour court, at the conclusion of the said application, has held that inquiry is legal and valid vide order dated 28.11.2023, which was carried before this Court by way of filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 9554 of 2024 which came to be disposed of on 14.09.2024 by observing that the said contention be raised at the time of final disposal before the learned labour court. Thereafter, during the course of proceedings of the final Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 23:35:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8482/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined adjudication of the dispute, application below Exh.34 was filed for production of certain documents including certified copies of the income tax return for the financial year 2020-21, 2023-24 which came to be allowed vide order dated 06.05.2025 which is subject matter of challenge before this court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Krishnan Ghavariya for the petitioner.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya submits that the Exh.34 application is filed without stating any cogent ground and at the fag end of the trial. Learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya submits that to determine whether the petitioner was gainfully employed or not, the petitioner has stepped into the witness box and stated that he is not gainfully employed. On assertion of the present petitioner the burden would shift on the employer to prove the facts of the gainful employment. To prove the said aspect the petitioner was called to produce income tax return so that liability of payment of back wages may not occur. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya that as per the settled principle of law burden of proof of existence of particular facts lies on Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 23:35:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8482/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined the person who makes positive averment about the existence. Learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya submits that the reference is filed in the year 2021 and the production application is filed in the year 2025 that is after a delay of four years without offering any explanation with regard to the filing of application at belated stage. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya that as the income tax returns are confidential documents therefore, no one can be compelled to produce the same in the court.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya relying on the decision rendered by the Madras High Court in the case of Nagammai Achi Versus Alamelu Achi reported in AIR 1957 MAD 401 submitted that under section 14 of the Income Tax Act the assessee who is in possession of the documents could not be compelled to produce the income tax returns as the same would be a confidential document and cannot be disclosed to third party and therefore, the court is prohibited from ordering the assessee to produce original income tax return. However, without considering the same the learned court has passed an order directing the income tax Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 23:35:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8482/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined return for the year 2020-21, 2023-24 therefore, impugned order deserves to be interfered with and the petition is required to be allowed.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocate it emerges from the record that on filing the reference, petitioner has stated in chief examination that he tried to get alternative work but he did not succeed and at present he is unemployed. On disclosure of the said aspect in the chief examination, petitioner was cross examined by the employer wherein he admitted that he was filing the income tax returns, however, he denied to produce the same after the year 2020. Learned court, for concluding that when the employee has pleaded with regard to his gainful employment, the burden would shift on the employee to rebut the same therefore, order was passed directing the present petitioner to produce the income tax return. This court is of the considered opinion that to adjudicate the claim of back wages it is necessary by the workman to plead and prove with the aid of evidence that after his dismissal from the service he was not gainfully employed anywhere and had no earning to maintain himself and Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 23:35:04 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8482/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/07/2025 undefined his family. On making the said positive assertion the employer is also entitled to prove it otherwise against the employee that the employee was gainfully employed during the relevant period hence he would not be entitled for the claim of back wages. Initial burden is on the employee and after he places material in that regard, the employer can bring on record the material to rebut the claim and to rebut the same, employer would be entitled to call for the documents from the present petitioner and if the same is not produced despite having the possession then learned court would have right to draw a adverse inference.
6. Since the judgment cited by the learned advocate was based on different facts, it is not applicable to the current case and therefore, cannot support the petitioner's claim for a favorable ruling.
7. In that background this court did not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Hence this petition does not require any interference with.
8. Resultantly this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 23:35:04 IST 2025