Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8493/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8493 of 2011
=========================================================
PALANPUR
NAGAR PALIKA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GIRISHKUMAR
MAFATLAL PARMAR - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MEHUL H RATHOD for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 02/08/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocate Mr.Mehul H. Rathod for the petitioner-Palanpur
Nagarpalika. The case of the respondent-workman before the Court was
that he had joined the services of the petitioner- Nagarpalika since
2nd November 1998 and worked upto 9th April
2000, and on 10th April 2000 his services were terminated
without any order in writing, without any notice pay or retrenchment
compensation.
2. Learned
advocate Mr.Mehul Rathod vehemently submitted that the
petitioner-Nagarpalika had produced relevant record, viz. from
02.11.1998 to 06.06.1999, the period for which according to the
petitioner-Nagarpalika, the respondent-workman was in service.
Similarly, for second spell when he was in service in the month of
April 2000, record was also produced. The learned advocate for the
petitioner-Nagarpalika submitted that the learned Judge has held that
the Nagarpalika did not produce the entire record for the period
which the respondent- workman contended to be in service, viz., 2nd
November 1998 to 9th April 2000. In absence of the record
from June 1999 to 1st April 2000, the learned Judge has
drawn adverse inference and accepted the case of the respondent-
workman.
3. It
is a settled position of law that a person, who is in possession of
the record has to produce the same, if he does not want the Court to
draw an adverse inference against him.
4. In
the present case, the fact remains that the petitioner- Nagarpalika
has produced record for the period only from November 1998 to June
1999 and for the month of April 2000. For the intervening period
record is not produced. Therefore, the learned Judge has drawn
adverse inference.
5. Despite
his strenuous efforts, the learned advocate could not convince this
Court that the court below has committed any error. The petition is
found without any substance. The same is dismissed.
(RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.)
karim
Top