Non-production of muster rolls warrants adverse inference, rendering termination without notice pay or re-employment offer illegal.

The respondent-workman, serving as a Watchman since 1987, was orally terminated by the petitioner-employer on 09.10.2012 without notice

After an initial reference rejection was remanded by the High Court in SCA No. 4938 of 2023, the Labour Court re-adjudicated the matter.

The petitioner failed to produce mandatory documents like attendance sheets and muster rolls, leading to an adverse inference

Finding the termination illegal and noting the workman had reached superannuation (60 years), the Labour Court awarded 50% back wages in lieu of reinstatement

The petitioner challenged this award under Article 227 of the Constitution

1. Whether the termination of the respondent-workman was in violation of the statutory procedures for retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

2. Whether the Labour Court was justified in awarding 50% back wages considering the workman’s superannuation and the employer's failure to offer re-employment

Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which mandates the provision of notice or notice pay and compensation for the retrenchment of a workman in continuous service

Section 25H of the same Act, which establishes the principle of re-employment of retrenched workmen, requiring the employer to offer the vacancy to the retrenched employee before hiring others

Principle of "adverse inference" under the Indian Evidence Act against the employer for withholding material documentary evidence such as pay slips and muster rolls

The Court observed that the petitioner-employer admitted the post in question was permanent and failed to prove the work was seasonal

Since the petitioner did not produce attendance or wage records despite being in possession of them, the Court upheld the Labour Court's adverse inference that the workman met the requirements of continuous service

The Court found a clear breach of Section 25H because the petitioner filled the vacancy with other workers without offering it to the respondent

Regarding the relief, the Court reasoned that since the workman had reached the age of 60, reinstatement was impossible; however, 50% back wages were deemed "just and reasonable" as the petitioner could not prove the termination was legal or that the award was erroneous

The Court affirmed the Labour Court’s award of 50% back wages from the date of termination until the date of superannuation

The petitioner was directed to comply with the order within six weeks from the receipt of the judgment