Non-production of wage registers warrants adverse inference that workforce exceeded the statutory threshold for protected closure.

The Petitioner, a Public Limited Company, issued a notice on August 14, 2014, to discontinue operations, followed by a closure notice on September 27, 2014, under Section 25-FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Petitioner claimed it employed exactly 99 workmen, thus only requiring a 60-day notice for closure.

The Respondent Union filed a Charter of Demands, asserting that the Petitioner actually employed over 100 workmen, which would necessitate prior government permission under Chapter V-B (Section 25-O) of the Act.

The Industrial Tribunal, Aurangabad, ruled in favor of the Union, finding the headcount exceeded 100.

The Petitioner challenged this finding in the High Court, asserting that the burden of proof lay on the Union and that administrative staff were wrongly classified as "workmen".

The court applied Section 25-K of the Industrial Disputes Act, which stipulates that Chapter V-B applies to establishments employing not less than 100 workmen on average per working day for the preceding twelve months.

The court contrasted Section 25-O (mandatory prior permission for closure) with Section 25-FFA (60-day notice for smaller establishments).

The court defined "workman" under Section 2(s), noting that employees are deemed workmen unless they fall under specific managerial or supervisory exceptions.

Regarding evidence, the court relied on the principle that the party in possession of the "best evidence" (the employer) must produce it, or face an adverse inference.

Reference was made to Shankar Chakravarti v. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. regarding the burden of proof.

The court found that the Respondent Union discharged its initial burden by providing a granular breakdown of 183 to 208 total workers (including direct, staff, and indirect workmen).

The court observed that the Petitioner failed to comply with the Tribunal’s order to produce the comprehensive Wages Register, despite being the legal custodian of such records.

Consequently, the court drew an adverse inference against the Petitioner for withholding primary evidence.

During cross-examination, the Petitioner’s witness admitted to the presence of staff members (e.g., Laser Cutting Operators and Store Keepers) but failed to produce appointment letters or evidence proving they performed purely managerial duties to exclude them from the definition of "workman".

The court reasoned that the Petitioner’s attempt to fix the headcount at exactly 99 was a "calculated move" to evade the rigours of Section 25-O.

The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the Industrial Tribunal’s order was upheld.

The court further rejected the Petitioner’s request for a stay on the judgment, noting the long pendency of the matter and the fact that the employees remained out of service.