Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Manager vs Darshan Singh (2025:Rj-Jd:1984) on 13 January, 2025

Author: Dinesh Mehta

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2025:RJ-JD:1984]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1820/2020

Manager, M/s. Silver Feb, RIICO Area, 4th Phase, Bhilwara.

----Petitioner Versus Darshan Singh S/o Balveer Singh, Resident Of Bapu Nagar, Bhilwara.

                                                                    ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Chayan Bothra with
                                   Mr. Sarthak Asopa
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Sanjay Nahar



                         JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                        Order

13/01/2025

1. The instant writ petition lays challenge to the order dated

21.11.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby respondent's application

under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947') was allowed and the

petitioner-employer was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,46,879/-

alongwith interest @ 6% p.a.

2. The facts appertain as pleaded by the respondent before the

Tribunal are that the respondent - Darshan Singh had worked as a

Jacquard Fitter with the petitioner - company upto 2014, he was

retrenched on 30.08.2014 by way of a verbal order. Feeling

aggrieved the respondent raised an industrial dispute, whereupon

a reference was made and a case was registered before the

learned Tribunal being Reference No.02/2015.

[2025:RJ-JD:1984] (2 of 5) [CW-1820/2020]

3. The said reference was decided by the learned Tribunal vide

its judgment and award dated 28.08.2019, inter-alia holding that

the respondent had voluntarily abandoned the services and he

was not illegally removed.

4. The respondent had also filed an application under section

33-C(2) of the Act of 1947, which was registered as Case No.

5/2015, which application came to be allowed by the learned

Tribunal on 21.11.2019 and the petitioner-employer was directed

to pay double the amount of wages - Rs.2,15,988/-; salary of

Rs.8,400/- and bonus of Rs.22,491/- (Total Rs.2,46,879/-).

5. The learned Tribunal has further ordered the petitioner-

employer to pay interest @ 6% p.a. in case of failure to make

payment aforesaid within a period of four months from the date of

the award.

6. Mr. Bothra, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

learned Tribunal has committed an error of facts and law in

allowing the respondent's application under section 33-C(2) of the

Act of 1947. He argued that the respondent had failed to adduce

the requisite evidence to establish that he had worked for the

period September, 2011 to 29.08.2014 and also beyond duty

hours, so as to be entitled for overtime.

7. Learned counsel argued that in absence of evidence, the

learned Tribunal ought not to have passed the award under

section 33-C(2) of the Act of 1947. A direction to pay double the

amount of wages due to the respondent could in any case have

not been issued.

8. Mr. Nahar, learned counsel for the respondent - workman on

the other hand submitted that the argument advanced by the

[2025:RJ-JD:1984] (3 of 5) [CW-1820/2020]

learned counsel for the petitioner are untenable, inasmuch as, the

respondent had requested the Tribunal to summon the record

including attendance register, salary register and appointment

order/agreement etc., by way of moving an application dated

23.11.2015, but in response to such application, the petitioner-

employer took a plea that the said registers are not available.

9. Learned counsel argued that in absence of documentary

evidence, the learned Tribunal has no option but to rely upon the

oral evidence, which the respondent had adduced and therefore,

no interference is warranted.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

11. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent-

workman had moved the application dated 23.11.2015 asking for

requisite documents to be brought on record, which application

was responded by the petitioner-employer that such record is not

available. Such being the position, the learned Tribunal has rightly

drawn an adverse inference against the petitioner and has relied

upon the oral evidence adduced by the respondent-workman.

12. If the evidence adduced by the respondent-workman is in

any manner contrary to the evidence, which was adduced by

Sampat Lal Choradia, Director of the petitioner company, this

Court is of the view that the court should give more credence to

the evidence adduced by the workman. The petitioner ought to

have brought in witness box any Supervisor or Manager etc.,

under whose supervision and control the workman was working.

The Director of the Company cannot have direct knowledge about

[2025:RJ-JD:1984] (4 of 5) [CW-1820/2020]

a workman and he cannot be said to be an independent witness in

the facts of present case.

13. In the case of Director, Fisheries Terminal Division vs.

Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda reported in 2010 (1) SCC

47, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has observed thus:

"Applying the principles laid down in the above case by this court, the evidence produced by the appellants has not been consistent. The appellants claim that the respondent did not work for 240 days. The respondent was a workman hired on a daily wage basis. So it is obvious, as this court pointed out in the above case that he would have difficulty in having access to all the official documents, muster rolls etc. in connection with his service. He has come forward and deposed, so in our opinion the burden of proof shifts to the employer/appellants to prove that he did not complete 240 days of service in the requisite period to constitute continuous service. It is the contention of the appellant that the services of the respondent were terminated in 1988. The witness produced by the appellant stated that the respondent stopped coming to work from February, 1988. The documentary evidence produced by the appellant is contradictory to this fact as it shows that the respondent was working during February, 1989 also. It has also been observed by the High Court that the muster roll for 1986-87 was not completely produced. The appellants have inexplicably failed to produce the complete records and muster rolls from 1985 to 1991, inspite of the direction issued by the labour court to produce the same. In fact there has been practically no challenge to the deposition of the respondent during cross-examination. In this regard, it would be pertinent to mention the observation of three judge bench of this court in the case of

[2025:RJ-JD:1984] (5 of 5) [CW-1820/2020]

Municipal Corporation, Faridabad vs. Siri Niwas (2004) 8 SCC 195, where it is observed:

"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 this contentions. The matter, however, would be different where despite direction by a court the evidence is withheld."

14. On appraisal of the overall factual matrix, this Court does not

find any infirmity in the award or any error committed by the

learned Tribunal.

15. The learned Tribunal was also justified in directing the

petitioner to pay double the amount of applicable wages/overtime,

as such direction is duly supported by Rule 26 of the Rajasthan

Minimum Wages Rules, 1959.

16. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.

17. Since, an interim order was passed by this Court on

05.02.2020 staying effect and operation of the award dated

21.11.2019, the petitioner shall not be required to pay the

applicable interest @ 6% p.a. in case, the amount awarded by the