1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- CIVIL REVISION No. 246 of 1997 ARUN JOSHI V/S EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR Mr. RJ JOSHI, Mr. BHIMKANT VYAS, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. HR SONI, AGA, for the respondent Date of Order : 2.7.2007 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. ORDER ----- This revision has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur dated 25.10.96, accepting the appeal of the respondents, filed against the award of the Payment of Wages Authority, Jodhpur, and thereby setting aside the award dated 14.3.1996. The facts of the case are, that the petitioner- workman filed an application under Section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, hereafter to be referred to as the 'Act', alleging, that he had worked from April 1991 to September 1991, and that he has not been paid wages amounting to Rs.4710/-. The employer contested the claim by taking the stand, that the petitioner never worked in their employment, during the alleged period, and therefore, is not entitled to any payment. 2 The learned Authority proceeded to draw adverse inference against the employer, on account of non- production of the relevant original muster roll, and in the result, made an award as above. Aggrieved of this, an appeal was filed before the learned District Judge, and the learned District Judge found, after appreciating the evidence, that in the muster roll of February and March 1991, the name of the present petitioner is entered. Then the muster rolls Ex.1 to 6 produced by the petitioner for the period April 1991 to September 1991 do not contain name of the present petitioner therein, and therefore, it was found, that the learned trial Court was in error in drawing adverse inference. Then regarding signature of Shanker Lal, it was found, that they have not been proved by the petitioner. In the result, the appeal was allowed. Arguing the revision, it was contended, that the petitioner had actually worked during April to September 1991, but since he was completing 240 days, therefore, he was pressed upon to receive the payment in the name of some other person, which he declined, and therefore, he has been subjected to this harassment. Then reliance was placed on the certificate issued by Shanker Lal, and by referring to statements of D.W.1, 2 and 3, Sandeep Mathur, Bhanwar Lal and Shanker Lal, it was contended, that there-from, the certificate is proved, and the order of the learned District Judge requires to be set aside. It was also contended, that the learned Authority had rightly drawn 3 adverse inference, and there was no occasion, for the learned Appellate Court, to interfere therewith. I have considered the submissions and have gone through the record. So far the certificate is concerned, a look at the record shows, that it has not been tendered in evidence, as it has not been marked exhibit. That apart, a look at the entire statement of the petitioner, does show, that he has not even whispered about this certificate, even to have at all been issued, or produced by him in the Court, much less has he proved it. Then Shanker Lal, D.W.3, was confronted with the certificate, but he was not admitted the signatures. In that view of the matter, in my view, the learned Appellate Court rightly found the certificate to have not been proved. So far adverse inference is concerned, of course the learned trial Court had drawn adverse inference, but the perusal of the record shows, that neither any application was filed on behalf of the petitioner to summon any original record from the employer, nor any such order was passed by the Authority directing the employer to produce any record, and in absence thereof, there is no occasion whatever for expecting the employer to suo motu produce such documents, as the employee feels that the employer should have produced, at the pain of drawl of adverse inference. In such circumstances, in my view, no adverse inference could have been drawn, and has rightly 4 not been so drawn by the learned Appellate Court. That apart, the petitioner himself has produced the photostat copies of the muster rolls, Ex.1 to 6, from April 1991 to September 1991, and therein the name of the petitioner is not shown, as a person to have worked, as claimed, and it is not the case of the petitioner, that in the original muster roll, his name was there. In that view of the matter, no interference is required to be drawn in favour of the petitioner or against the respondent, on this count as well. In view of the above discussion, when the learned Appellate Court has found that the petitioner has failed to have proved to have worked for the period as claimed; that finding cannot be said to be in any manner vitiated, requiring interference in my revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/