Delhi HC: Labour Court Erred Ignoring Muster Rolls; No Proof of 240 Days Service

A bench of Justice Shail Jain heard a writ petition challenging the Award dated 25 October 2007 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. X, in I.D. No. 2016/1994. The Labour Court had declined reinstatement and back wages to three erstwhile casual workers of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The petitioners contested the Labour Court's primary finding that no employer–employee relationship existed and sought quashing of the Award and directions for reinstatement with continuity and full back wages; the matter was reserved on 12 February 2026 and decided on 1 April 2026.

The High Court set aside the Labour Court's finding on the existence of an employer–employee relationship but refused substantive relief because the petitioners had not established the statutory prerequisite of completion of 240 days' service in the relevant twelve month period under Section 25B, and thus could not claim protection under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 

The Court held that where employment records such as muster rolls were in the exclusive custody of the employer and were not produced, an adverse inference was warranted. As the Court explained, it exercised a supervisory jurisdiction confined to correcting patent illegality, perversity or material irregularity and not to reappreciate facts: "A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals; these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or in excess of it..." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the decision in the impugned Award dated 25th October, 2007, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. X, Delhi, in I.D. No. 2016/1994, as regards the existence of an employer–employee relationship, cannot be sustained. The learned Labour Court failed to consider the effect of non production of muster roll records, which were in the exclusive possession of the Respondent/Management. The explanation regarding the destruction of records was accepted without scrutiny and without examining whether an adverse inference ought to have been drawn. The Petitioners, being casual daily rated workers, could not reasonably be expected to produce documentary records maintained by the employer. It is reiterated that the approach adopted by the Labour Court, therefore, suffers from material irregularity."

Background
The petitioners Kishan Sharma, Sunder Lal and Vinod Kumar claimed long engagement as Mali/Beldar in the Horticulture Department at Roshanara Garden on a casual, daily rated/muster roll basis and alleged termination without reason on 26 September 1990. They said similarly placed workers were regularised and received statutory benefits, whereas they were not issued appointment letters. After serving a demand notice in September 1993, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in October 1994 on the question whether their services were terminated illegally and, if so, what reliefs were due. The Labour Court framed issues including whether an employer–employee relationship existed and, if termination was illegal, the relief.

The petitioners placed reliance on their oral evidence and asserted that muster roll and wage records were relevant and in the respondent's custody; the respondent denied any employment relationship, pointed to absence from seniority lists and said the records had been destroyed after fifteen years. The Labour Court accepted the respondent's case and rejected the petitioners' claim.

The High Court reviewed settled principles on the burden of proof in employment disputes, citing authorities that the initial burden lay on the workman but shifted to the employer once the workman made out foundational facts and called for records. The Court held the Labour Court committed material irregularity by accepting the respondent's explanation for non production without scrutiny and by failing to draw an adverse inference. However, the Court observed that the petitioners had not pleaded or proved completion of 240 days of work in any relevant twelve month period as required by Section 25B; without such proof, Section 25F protections did not apply. Consequently, the Court set aside the Labour Court's finding on the employer–employee relationship but dismissed the writ petition on merits, leaving the termination of 26 September 1990 not to be declared illegal for non compliance with Section 25F. There was no order as to costs.

Case Details:
Case No.: W.P.(C) 1162/2008
Case Title: Kishan Sharma & Ors. v. Management of Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. R.K. Ojha, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Senior Counsel with Ms. Shweta Singh, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 178