Employer Withholding Employment Records Cannot Defeat Workman’s Claim Of 240 Days Service: Delhi High Court
The Court held that where AIIMS failed to produce attendance and muster roll records despite notice, the Labor Court erred in rejecting daily-wagers' claims and assuming records were destroyed without evidence.
The Delhi High Court has set aside two separate Labor Court awards that had upheld the termination of daily-wage employees by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). The Bench noted that while the legal burden of establishing completion of 240 days of continuous service under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 rests on the workman, an employer who exclusively maintains and withholds the best available employment records cannot take advantage of its own non-production.
In the matter, AIIMS admitted the engagement of both workmen who were orally in mid-1995 without notice or retrenchment compensation, but contested their completion of 240 continuous days of service. However, AIIMS failed to produce the records before the Labor Court, and its witnesses were unable to state the factual basis for alleging breaks in service.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Shail Jain observed, “Before considering the authorities governing proof of completion of 240 days of continuous service, it is apposite to notice the distinction between the burden of proof and the evidentiary onus. Though closely related, the two concepts operate in different spheres of the law of evidence. The legal burden of establishing completion of 240 days of continuous service rests throughout upon the workman who invokes the protection of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and remains unchanged during the course of the proceedings. The evidentiary onus, however, is not static…”.
“…Where the workman lays the foundational factual basis of the claim by leading cogent evidence and specifically calls upon the employer to produce the relevant employment records lying within its exclusive custody, the evidentiary onus shifts to the employer to meet the case so established by producing the best evidence available to it. Whether the workman has ultimately discharged the legal burden resting upon him is, however, to be determined upon an overall appreciation of the entire evidence led by both parties”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Ashok Gurnani appeared for the peritioner and Advocate V.S. R. Krishna appeared for the respondent.
The petitioners, Amarjit Singh (engaged as a Tractor Driver in 1993) and Ved Prakash (engaged as a daily-rated Lift Operator in 1992), were orally terminated by AIIMS in mid-1995 without notice or retrenchment compensation.
Both workmen raised industrial disputes alleging violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. During proceedings before the Labor Court, both workmen deposed on oath and issued notices under Order XII Rule 8 of the CPC requiring AIIMS to produce contemporaneous attendance registers, muster rolls, and wage records.
Despite this, the Labor Court in February 2004 rejected the workmen's claims, erroneously concluding that the records had been destroyed and that the workmen failed to prove 240 days of service.
The Court noted that the Labor Court’s finding regarding the "destruction of records" was completely perverse, as AIIMS had neither pleaded nor proved that any records were destroyed. On the contrary, AIIMS witnesses acknowledged preparing their affidavits based on records that were never produced before the court.
Reiterating the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer (2006) 1 SCC 106 and Director, Fisheries Terminal Division v. Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda (2010) 1 SCC 47.
Addressing the question of relief, the Court noted that over three decades had elapsed since the termination in 1995. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Bench held that reinstatement is not an automatic remedy for daily-wage workers after such an extraordinary passage of time.
The Court directed AIIMS to pay each petitioner a lump-sum compensation of within eight weeks, failing which the amount will attract interest at 9% per annum from the date of default.
Cause Title: Amarjit Singh v. AIIMS & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:6053)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Ashok Gurnani and Mukul Gupta, Advocates.
Respondent: V.S. R. Krishna and V. Shashank Kumar, Advocates.