[2026:RJ-JP:5598] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17213/2025 1. Managing Director, Chokhi Dhani, Raj Bhawan Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur through Shri Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Charan Singh, Area Manager, Chokhi Dhani Group, Jaipur. 2. Regional Manager, Chokhi Dhani, 12 Meal, Sanganer, Jaipur through Shri Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Charan Singh, Area Manager, Chokhi Dhani Group, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus Shri Kailash Chand Jogi S/o Shri Shankar Lal Jogi, resident of Gram Shri Ram Kinagta (correct address Gram Shri Ram Ki Nangal), Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur through Shri Kunal Rawat Labour Advisor, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Goyal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 06/02/2026 1. Petitioner has filed the instant writ petiton challenging award dated 22.11.2024 passed by Labour Court No.1, Jaipur, whereby reference in relation to validity and propriety of termination of respondent-workman w.e.f. 19.04.2006 has been answered against the petitioners-employer and while holding the termination to be illegal, compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- has been awarded to the respondent-workman. 2. It is stated that the respondent-workman initiated industrial dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947') stating therein that he was [2026:RJ-JP:5598] (2 of 7) [CW-17213/2025] engaged as 'waiter' with the petitioners-employer on 14.02.2002, however, without making compliance of mandatory provisions of the Act of 1947, his services were terminated vide oral order dated 19.04.2006. As no conciliation could take place before the Conciliation Officer, therefore, failure report was submitted to the appropriate government and ultimately, the appropriate government referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court. 3. While submitting statement of claim, the respondent- workman impleaded Managing Director and Regional Manager of Chokhi Dhani, Jaipur, as employer/industrial institutions and submitted that the respondent-workman had worked from 14.02.2002 to 18.04.2006 as 'waiter'. It was submitted that without making compliance of provision of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 and without giving any notice or conducting any enquiry or without even making payment of any compensation, services of the petitioner were terminated by oral termination order dated 19.04.2006. It was submitted that the respondent-workman had worked for more than 240 days just immediately preceding 240 days from the date of termination, therefore, the termination order being contrary to law be held illegal and directions for reinstatement along with all consequential benefits be given. 4. Reply to the statement of claim was filed by the petitioner mentioning therein that the workman has not indicated as to whether he was employed with non-claimant No.1 or 2 and since he was never employed with the petitioner, therefore, there was no question of any termination or making compliance of provisions of the Act of 1947. [2026:RJ-JP:5598] (3 of 7) [CW-17213/2025] 5. Thereafter, the respondent-workman submitted his affidavit in evidence and repeated the contentions made in the statement of claim. He was cross-examined by the employer, however, no suggestion whatsoever was given during the cross- examination that the respondent-workman has never worked with the petitioner. 6. In counter, affidavit of Mr. Mahendra Singh, Area Manager, Chokhi Dhani Group, Jaipur, was submitted to negate the claim of the respondent-workman. During his cross-examination it was admitted by the witness Mr. Mahendra Singh that entire record such as entry register, payment vouchers, muster roll, attendance register, documents with regard to EPF & ESI are duly maintained by the petitioners, however, on the date of examination in Court such record was not available with him and he assured that on directions of the Court such record could be produced by him. 7. Thereupon, an application was submitted by the respondent-workman seeking directions to the petitioners to produce the record. Such application was allowed by the learned Labour Court vide order dated 23.04.2015. Despite directions, since the record was not produced. Instead thereof, an affidavit was filed that the record was since relating to the year 2006, hence, being quite old record it was not preserved by the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that non- production of the record and such affidavit filed by the petitioners was taken as non-compliance by the learned Labour Court and quite erroneously an adverse inference was drawn. Merely by [2026:RJ-JP:5598] (4 of 7) [CW-17213/2025] drawing adverse inference, it was presumed that the respondent- workman had worked with the petitioners and only on the basis of surmises and conjunctures perverse finding has been given that his services were terminated in violation of provisions of the Act of 1947 and liability of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- has been illegally fastened upon the petitioners. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the award submits that the award is totally against the facts of the case, material on record and law prevailing at the relevant time. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Section 13A of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (for short, 'the Act of 1936'), to contend that employer is under an obligation to preserve the record only for a period of three years and not thereafter. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.M. Yellatti vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer reported in 2006 (1) SCC 106 to contend that it was the primary duty of the workman to prove his statement of claim and mere non-production of record cannot be a ground to accept the plea of the workman. 12. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 13. It is not disputed that immediately after termination of services w.e.f. 18.04.2006, the respondent-workman raised industrial dispute, which was ultimately referred vide reference dated 09.1.2007 to the learned Labour Court for adjudication. 14. This Court examined the statements given by the employer's witness Mr. Mahendra Singh, who admitted that record [2026:RJ-JP:5598] (5 of 7) [CW-17213/2025] was although available, yet on the date of examination he did not bring the same with him and on directions, the same can be produced. Thereupon, application for summoning the record was filed by the workman, which was allowed. Admittedly, record was not produced and thereafter affidavit of some other person Ms. Sanchi Gupta was filed stating therein that since the record was old, therefore, it was not preserved and maintained. 15. Thus, it is clear that self-contradictory stand has been taken by the employer before the learned Labour Court and despite the fact that employer's witness admitted that the record was available with him, it was not produced by the petitioner- employee. So far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of Section 13A of the Act of 1936, the employer was under an obligation to preserve the record only for three years, it is sufficient to observe that firstly the provisions of the Act of 1936 cannot applied while deciding reference under the Act of 1947, due to having altogether different operational and jurisdictional subject matter and mechanism, yet even otherwise the period for which the employer was required to submit his record was commencing from 14.02.2002 to 19.04.2006. It is also a matter of record that after undergoing process of conciliation and failure report the reference was sent by the appropriate government to the learned Labour Court vide notification dated 09.01.2007. Thus, the respondent-employer was having knowledge of the fact that dispute with regard to termination of respondent-employee w.e.f. 19.04.2006 was pending before the learned Labour Court, under these circumstances, even in view of Section 13A of the Act of 1936, even if assumed to be applicable, [2026:RJ-JP:5598] (6 of 7) [CW-17213/2025] the employer was having legal duty to preserve the record relating to the period at least prior to three years preceding from the date of reference made by the appropriate government to the learned Labour Court. Since, the date of reference is 09.01.2007, hence, there was no sufficient reason available to the petitioners- employer to weed out the record of the period immediately preceding three years from the date of reference. Since, the record called by learned Labour Court was of the same period which falls within the said period of three years, hence, alleged justification given by the petitioners-employer for not producing the record before the learned Labour Court was totally untenable in the eye of law and was an attempt to hide the evidence from Court. Under these circumstances, no error or illegality whatsoever has been committed by the learned Labour Court in drawing adverse inference against the petitioners. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of R.M. Yellatti (supra), wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the principle that primary duty rest upon the workman to prove his case. There can be no quarrel with the principle laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the workman was not in power and possession of the sole evidence i.e. service record and admittedly the petitioners-employer is custodian of the record and was supposed to produce the record summoned by the learned Labour Court but for no good reasons the record was withheld by the employer and even the provision of Section 13A of the Act of 1936 would not come to the rescue of the petitioners-employer, [2026:RJ-JP:5598] (7 of 7) [CW-17213/2025] the judgment of R.M. Yellatti (supra), would not be applicable in the present case. 17. As regards, other findings of the learned Labour Court, they are factual in nature which cannot be interfered in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. 18. So far as, relief granted by the learned Labour Court is concerned, this Court finds that looking to the fact that there was considerable gap between date of termination and award, instead of granting benefit of reinstatement, merely just and fair compensation has been awarded, which is in consonance with the recent judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the award dated 22.11.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court. 19. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed. 20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/17