IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 10691 of 1999 Between: The Executive Engineer (R&B) Division Office, Marripalem, Visakhapatnam - 18. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Sri Pelivela Venkata Rama Mallikarjuna Rao, S/o Late Pampayya, Dr. No. 30-31,115, Green Gardens, Visakhapatnam - 18. 2 The Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, rep by its Chairman & Presiding Officer Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ or direction or orders particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in I.D. No. 501/94 dt. 28/2/98, as published in G.O. Rt. No. 629, dt. 25/3/98 on the file of the 2nd Respondent i.e. Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court visakapatnam and quash the same as being contrary to law, illegal, without jurisdiction and pass such other order or orders as are necessary as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 10691 OF 1999 ORDER: Aggrieved by the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in I.D. No. 501 of 1994 dated 28.02.1998, the present writ petition is filed. Despite a specific denial in the counter, filed by the petitioner herein before the Industrial Tribunal, to the workman’s claim that he had worked with them for three years, the Industrial Tribunal placed the onus on the employer and held that since they did not produce the muster rolls which they were required to maintain under Section 25-D of the Industrial Disputes Act as also the seniority list contemplated by Rules 79 of Andhra Pradesh Industrial Disputes Rules, an adverse inference had to be drawn for non-production of such records. It is well settled, by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court in Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore Vs S. Mani[1]; Batala Coop. Sugar Mills Ltd Vs. Sowaran Singh[2]; Surendranagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh[3]; Chief Engineer (construction) Vs. Keshava Rao (dead) by Lrs[4]; Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimini[5], that the onus is on the workman to establish that he had put in more than 240 days of service in the twelve month period preceding his termination and that he has to adduce adequate evidence, in addition to his self-serving oral testimony, in this regard. In the present case, except for examining himself as WW-1 the first respondent-workman did not examine any other witness let alone mark any documents in his defence. Since the award was passed on the erroneous premise that the onus is on the employer to satisfy that the workman has not worked for 240 days and, as the workman has not adduced any evidence, other than his self-serving oral testimony, in support his claim that he had put in more than 240 days in the 12 month period preceding his termination, the impugned award is liable to be quashed. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________________________ Date: 29.02.2008 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MUK} [1] (2005) 5 SCC 100 [2] (2005) 8 SCC 481 [3] (2005) 8 SCC 750 [4] (2005) 11 SCC 229 [5] (2002) 3 SCC 25