M/S MITTAL TRADING COMPANY AND ANR. v. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR AND ANR.
W.P.(C)/10614/2018 · 2026-04-30
Manoj Kumar Ohri
Writ Petition (Civil)body2018
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2018 DAILYLAW 3502 (DEL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2018 DAILYLAW 3502 (DEL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
$~4 * IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 10614/2018
M/S MITTAL TRADING COMPANY AND ANR......Petitioner
Through: Appearance not given
versus
SHRI ASHOK KUMAR AND ANR.
.....Respondent Through: Mr. Nishant Rajara and Ms. Sheetal, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI
O R D E R %
30.04.2026
1. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 06.06.2018 passed by the Tribunal, whereby the petitioner-management is aggrieved by the finding that photocopies of the attendance register produced by the workman are to be treated as primary evidence.
2.
Learned counsel for the management submits that while the management does not deny maintaining the attendance register, it is contended that the same has been lost. It is further submitted that the management has also doubted the photocopies produced by the workman, claiming it to be forged.
3.
Learned counsel for the workman, on the other hand, submits that besides the present workman, other workmen had also approached the Tribunal, wherein similar photocopies of the attendance register were admitted and treated as secondary evidence, and an award has already been This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 13:11:44
passed on 25.02.2025. A copy of the said award has been physically handed over in Court.
4. Considering that the workman’s case is of producing photocopies, the original of which is stated to be in the possession of the management, which is not denied, however, it is claimed that the same is lost, as of now. Such a plea would squarely attract Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. In these circumstances, the photocopies produced by the workman are liable to be treated as secondary evidence.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the photocopies of the attendance register will be treated as secondary evidence.
6. In view of above, the present petition is disposed of.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J APRIL 30, 2026 sn
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 06/05/2026 at 13:11:44