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
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
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
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
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
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
