There was no adverse inference against the management for non-production of the muster roll when the workman admitted that he had never summoned the relevant muster roll himself

The petitioner was a watchman in the Respondent’s Department. He worked from 11.03.1997 to 31.03.1998, and 01.04.1998 he was terminated. The issue arose when the petitioner approached the Labour court, alleging that he was terminated illegally without following the necessary guidelines. The Labour court found out that the petitioner has only worked for 131 days, and therefore, Section 25F,25G,25H would not be applicable, which requires a workman to have rendered services for 240 days.

Also, the Labour Court found that the petitioner was hired on a contractual basis, covered under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court through a writ petition challenging the illegal termination and further contending that an adverse interference should be drawn against the employer for non-production of record showing workman’s service for 240 days. The Respondent contended that all guidelines and procedures were followed to terminate the petitioner, and, further, a self-serving affidavit by the petitioner in support of his claim of 240 days of service is not reliable.

After relying on both parties’ arguments and case laws, the court decided that the onus to prove the case lies on the workman, and the workman has not provided sufficient evidence to show his service of 240 days. The petitioner made no further efforts to summon the muster roll, attendance register, wages register, etc. A self-serving affidavit is insufficient, and mere non-production of the record by the Respondent is not enough to draw an adverse interference against the respondent.