Adverse inference mandates reinstatement where employer withholds attendance records and violates mandatory re-employment rights.

The petitioner was employed as a Class IV Peon with the respondent school from December 23, 1997, until his oral termination on September 23, 1998.

The petitioner challenged this termination before the Labour Court (Ref. LCA/162/2001), asserting he had completed 240 days of service.

During the proceedings, the petitioner filed a production application (Exh. 16) for attendance registers and salary slips; however, the employer only produced partial records for four months.

The Labour Court rejected the reference on September 7, 2007, citing the petitioner's failure to prove 240 days of continuous service.

The petitioner filed the present Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash that award.

1. Whether the adverse inference should be drawn against the employer for non-production of vital documents (attendance registers) despite court orders.

2. Whether the termination was in violation of Sections 25F and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates a notice period or wages in lieu thereof and compensation for retrenching a workman who has been in continuous service for one year.

Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which grants retrenched workmen preference in re-employment.

The evidentiary principle of "adverse inference" derived from the Indian Evidence Act, whereby the withholding of vital statutory records (like Muster Rolls/attendance sheets) by an employer leads to a presumption in favor of the employee’s claims.

Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966, was noted regarding the maintenance of seniority lists.

While the employer claimed the petitioner only worked 102 days, they failed to comply with the production order for the full period of attendance registers (Exh. 16).

The employer’s witness admitted that "rough attendance sheets" existed but were not produced; the court held that withholding such vital official records necessitates an adverse inference against the management.

Furthermore, the witness admitted that permanent peon positions were filled in 2006 without offering the petitioner re-employment, which constitutes a clear breach of the mandatory requirements of Section 25H.

The court determined that the petitioner’s claim of 240 days was validated by the employer’s failure to produce the best available evidence.

The court held that the respondent violated Sections 25F and 25H of the Act.

The Court ordered the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service at his original post within four weeks.

Back wages were denied as the petitioner failed to plead or prove he remained unemployed during the intervening period.