JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the Award dated 21.7.2011(Annexure-12); whereby the dispute in question referred to the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad has been answered against the present petitioners. 3. The factual matrix is that the petitioners are working under the respondent on various post of class-IV being appointed between the period of 1990–1994. Furthermore, the stand of the petitioners is to the effect that they are working in different posts, which are of permanent nature, including exchange maintenance, cable maintenance, line maintenance, store maintenance, PCM, maintenance, etc. continuously under the direct control and supervision of the respondent. The petitioners have claimed that the respondent had directly employed them. According to them, the works they were engaged to perform were of permanent and perennial nature and their jobs were directly connected with the operations and crucial to the functioning of the respondents. It has been further narrated that the petitioners have put in more than 240 days of attendance in each year and the same is disputed by the organization. 4. Learned Industrial Tribunal had come to a finding that these workers/petitioners had been working directly under the supervision and control of the respondent authorities, but negated their claim on the ground that there is no cogent evidence to the fact that they had worked for more than 240 days in a year. Further in regards to issue of certain employees who had worked for more than more than 240 days for them, the Learned Industrial Tribunal had passed an order to the effect that in case a fresh appointment process is undertaken, their cases may also be considered. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Award, the present application has been filed. 5. The basic grounds taken by the petitioners are twofold: a. An application was moved before the conciliating authority, and the same was also filed before the Industrial Tribunal to the effect that there were certain documents in form of AC – II register, which was in possession of the respondent authorities which may be called for. b. Adverse inference was required to be drawn to the fact that the vital documents as well as crucial evidence were not produced in order to throw light on the fact at issue. 6. b. Adverse inference was required to be drawn to the fact that the vital documents as well as crucial evidence were not produced in order to throw light on the fact at issue. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an application was filed for calling for records, which could have thrown light on the fact as to the period of service of the petitioners with the respondent authorities. No orders thereto were passed to that extent; nor those documents were placed on record. Further, it has been asserted that in the cross-examination of MW –1 (Annexure-8) which is the management witness, it has been categorically said by the witness:- “It is fact that the SDO telecom had engaged the workmen in the field and it is also fact that the workmen were paid their wages from CG – 17 Accounts Establishment, Accounts General. It is the SDO telecom who was the competent authority to pay the workmen. Their wages can say about the period of their engagement.” “I cannot, but the SDO field office can tell whether the aforesaid work are of permanent nature. I cannot say, but the SDO can tell which of the workman, were engaged, in which job. I don’t have personal knowledge about the engagement of the workmen in the field.” 7. Relying on these two facts, the argument has been set up by the petitioners to the effect that going to non-filing of documents which could throw light on the facts of the matter and also withholding the vital evidence of the SDO Telecom, adverse inference shall be drawn under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence act, 1872 (corresponding to Section 119 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,2023). 8. Reliance has also been placed upon the following judgements to buttress the argument in regards to adverse inference: (a) Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar vs Mohamed Haji Latif AIR 1968 SC 1413 (b) Punit Rai vs Dinesh Choudhary (2003) 8 SCC 204 (c) Shripal & Ors vs Nagar Nigam (2025) INSC 144 . 9. Further submission has been made to the effect that the Learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal has also misinterpreted the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court renderd in the case of State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi reported (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 10. It has been contended by the Ld. 9. Further submission has been made to the effect that the Learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal has also misinterpreted the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court renderd in the case of State of Karnataka vs Uma Devi reported (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 10. It has been contended by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the said judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) has been further explained in the following three judgements:- (a) Jaggo vs Union of India (2024) SCC OnLine SC 3826 (b) Shripal & Ors vs Nagar Nigam 2025 INSC 144 (c) Dharam Singh & Ors vs State of UP (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1735 Accordingly, the petitioners pray for relief to the effect that this petition is required to be allowed in light of adverse inference being drawn for withholding vital evidence which could have thrown light on the facts of the matter. Stand of the respondents: 11. Submissions have been made on behalf of the respondent to the effect that the Award passed by the Learned Tribunal is a speaking order, which has dealt with entire facts of the matter, and calls for no interference. 12. The respondent has further stated that no application for calling for witness of the said SDO was ever moved by the workmen/petitioners and as such adverse inference is not required to be drawn. Further, it has been stated that the petitioners-workmen had failed to produce evidence to the effect that they had work for more than 240 days in a calendar year as such no relief can be granted to them. 13. Having heard Ld. Counsels for the rival parties and after perusing the Award and the documents on record; it is clear & evident that the only issue to be decided is to the effect that whether the order passed by the Presiding Officer (No.2) of the Industrial Tribunal, Central Government at Dhanbad in Reference Case No.100 of 1998 dated 21.7.2011 is justified or not. 14. As per the records, it is clear and evident that initially the respondent had appeared before the Industrial Tribunal and contested the matter taking the stand that these present petitioner/workmen are/were never employees of the respondent authorities. The Learned Tribunal had called for the records of the conciliation proceeding wide order dated 5.3.03. 14. As per the records, it is clear and evident that initially the respondent had appeared before the Industrial Tribunal and contested the matter taking the stand that these present petitioner/workmen are/were never employees of the respondent authorities. The Learned Tribunal had called for the records of the conciliation proceeding wide order dated 5.3.03. (Annexure-13 of the supplementary affidavit dated 8.2.2012) which also contained the application for calling for documents. 15. The application for calling for documents is a crucial pertinent document which the workmen petitioners had asked and requested the respondent to bring on record the vital documents which was required to throw light on the factual matrix of the matter. 16. No specific orders thereto have been passed asking the respondent management to bring on record the said documents; nor in terms statements of the Management Witness-1, the SDO concerned were ever put for examination/cross examination. 17. It is a duty cast upon any Adjudicating authority to come to a definite finding of fact and it is also the duty of the parties appearing before a Court of Law to produce documents which could throw light on the factual aspect. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Gopal Krishanji (supra) para 5 which is quoted for ready reference: “5. …….. Mr. Gokhale, however, argued that it was no part of the appellant's duty to produce the accounts unless he was called upon to do so and the onus was upon the respondents to prove the case and to show that the Dargah was the owner of plot No. 134. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. Even if the burden of proof does not lie on a party the Court may draw an adverse inference if he withholds important documents in his possession which can throw light on the facts at issue. It is not, in our opinion, a sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the best evidence which is in their possession which could throw light upon the issues in controversy and to rely upon the abstract doctrine of onus of proof.” “…The observations of the Judicial Committee do not support the proposition that unless a party is called upon expressly to make an affidavit of documents and inspection and production of documents is demanded, the Court cannot raise an adverse inference against a party withholding evidence in his possession. Such a rule is inconsistent with illustration (g) of s. 114 of the Evidence Act, and also an impressive body of authority.” Emphasis Supplied 18. The very same law with regards to adverse inference i.e. against a party who is in position of the best evidence which could throw light on the controversy and when the said party withholds such evidence, then the same merits into resulting adverse inference under section 114(g) of the evidence act to be drawn, notwithstanding that the onus of proof may not lie on him; has been also observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgement of Puneet Rai supra; reference may be made to paragraph 10 of the same. 19. Furthermore, there is a specific averment made in paragraph 19 of the writ application, which has not been controverted by the respondent wherein it has been stated that the petitioner/workmen had on their own, found the AC –II register of some of the workmen, but the Learned Tribunal did not mark those as exhibits. 20. It is required to be understood that these petitioners are class-III and IV employees who could not have brought the registers and documents which were in possession of the respondent authorities. At best, they could have only prayed that these documents be brought on record which the petitioners admittedly have done. 21. 20. It is required to be understood that these petitioners are class-III and IV employees who could not have brought the registers and documents which were in possession of the respondent authorities. At best, they could have only prayed that these documents be brought on record which the petitioners admittedly have done. 21. In light, of the aforementioned facts, adverse inference is required to be drawn as against the respondent for withholding of vital evidence i.e. by not producing the original record of the number of days the workmen had worked. If the Respondent Management through the SDO was, in fact aware of the period of service of the workmen which could also be proved through the AC-II register, then it was obligatory on the part of the respondent Management to produce the evidence in its possession. If it had not done so in spite of being in possession of the same, adverse inference should have been drawn by against the respondent under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act,1872 i.e. that if such evidence were to be produced, it would be unfavorable to the respondent who withheld it. 22. Now coming to the issue of regularisation of the present petitioners/workmen. The law in regards to regularization which was propounded in the case of Uma Devi Supra has been clarified recently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in three of the landmark judgements that is in the cases of Shripal vs Nagar Nigam, Jaggo vs UOI and Dharam Singh vs State of U.P. & Ors (supra). 23. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shripal vs Nagar Nigam (Supra) had also taken a note of the fact that if the employer fails to furnish records, then an adverse inference is required to be drawn against them, reference may be made to paragraph 15 of the said judgement. The said judgement was also of similar nature to the present case where in the respondent management had taken a stand that the workmen had not produced evidence/proved to the effect that they had work for more than 240 days. The fact that the respondent management had not produced vital records despite directions. Consequently, taking the aid of adverse inference, an order of regularization of their services was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 24. The fact that the respondent management had not produced vital records despite directions. Consequently, taking the aid of adverse inference, an order of regularization of their services was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 24. In the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Jaggo vs UOI supra, certain paragraphs are required to be referred in order to understand the concept of regularization as is to be followed in light of the Uma Devi’s judgement, which has all along been misinterpreted, as is apparent in the present case by the Industrial Tribunal and the relevant extracts of the judgment by the Hon’ble Apex Court is being reproduced to reflect the same: “22: The pervasive misuse of temporary employment contracts, as exemplified in this case, reflects a broader systemic issue that adversely affects workers' rights and job security. In the private sector, the rise of the gig economy has led to an increase in precarious employment arrangements, often characterized by lack of benefits, job security, and fair treatment. Such practices have been criticized for exploiting workers and undermining labour standards. Government institutions, entrusted with upholding the principles of fairness and justice, bear an even greater responsibility to avoid such exploitative employment practices. When public sector entities engage in misuse of temporary contracts, it not only mirrors the detrimental trends observed in the gig economy but also sets a concerning precedent that can erode public trust in governmental operations.” “25. It is a disconcerting reality that temporary employees, particularly in government institutions, often face multifaceted forms of exploitation. While the foundational purpose of temporary contracts may have been to address short-term or seasonal needs, they have increasingly become a mechanism to evade long-term obligations owed to employees. These practices manifest in several ways: • Misuse of “Temporary” Labels: Employees engaged for work that is essential, recurring, and integral to the functioning of an institution are often labelled as “temporary” or “contractual,” even when their roles mirror those of regular employees. Such misclassification deprives workers of the dignity, security, and benefits that regular employees are entitled to, despite performing identical tasks. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Arbitrary Termination: Temporary employees are frequently dismissed without cause or notice, as seen in the present case. This practice undermines the principles of natural justice and subjects workers to a state of constant insecurity, regardless of the quality or duration of their service. • Lack of Career Progression: Temporary employees often find themselves excluded from opportunities for skill development, promotions, or incremental pay raises. They remain stagnant in their roles, creating a systemic disparity between them and their regular counterparts, despite their contributions being equally significant. • Using Outsourcing as a Shield: Institutions increasingly resort to outsourcing roles performed by temporary employees, effectively replacing one set of exploited workers with another. This practice not only perpetuates exploitation but also demonstrates a deliberate effort to bypass the obligation to offer regular employment. • Denial of Basic Rights and Benefits: Temporary employees are often denied fundamental benefits such as pension, provident fund, health insurance, and paid leave, even when their tenure spans decades. This lack of social security subjects them and their families to undue hardship, especially in cases of illness, retirement, or unforeseen circumstances.” 25. Similar observations were also made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharam Singh vs State of UP, which also subsequently considered in the judgement of Shripal & ors vs Nagar Nigam. 26. In light of the facts stated above; interference is required to be made in the Tribunal’s order and the same is required to be set aside, so far as it relates to the present petitioners. 27. But in absence of adequate proof, with respect to the period of service so rendered by individual workmen, it would be apt that the matter be remitted to the Industrial Tribunal to decide the issue of period of service of the present petitioner/workmen afresh. Accordingly, the Award dated 21.7.2011(Annexure-12), is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Central Government, Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad to pass a fresh order after calling for the relevant evidence of the SDO concern as well as calling for the records of the respondents in regards to the documents demanded by the petitioners by way of Annexure – 7. Fresh Award be passed preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of order. 28. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands partly allowed. Pending I.A.s, if any, also stands disposed of.