Adverse Inference for Missing Records – Compensation Over Reinstatement

Case Details: Punjab & Sind Bank vs Ramesh Chandra Semwal [2026] 184 taxmann.com 718 (Delhi)[27-02-2026]

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Shail Jain, J.
Rajat Arora, Niraj Kumar & Sourabh Mahila, Advs. for the Petitioner.
Sandeep Sharma, Sr. Adv., Hunny Singh & Ankit Parindiyal, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the respondent–workman was engaged by the petitioner bank as a temporary Orderly on the panel of subordinate staff. He continued to work in a temporary capacity until his services were abruptly terminated without notice, following which he raised an industrial dispute.

The Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) held the termination to be void ab initio and directed reinstatement with continuity of service, albeit without back wages. It further ordered regularisation of the workman as Orderly/Daftari with effect from the date of termination.

The Tribunal noted that the workman had adduced both oral and documentary evidence to establish his engagement from 1996 to 2003. It was further observed that, despite specific directions, the bank failed to produce muster rolls and attendance registers for the relevant period.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that since the relevant records, including muster rolls, attendance registers and wage records, were in the possession of the bank, and no plausible explanation was offered for their non-production, the CGIT was justified in drawing an adverse inference against the bank.

On merits, the Court held that merely because the workman was engaged as a part-time subordinate (PTS)/Daftari on a daily-wage basis, no exception is carved out under the Act for casual, temporary or daily-rated employees. Once a workman satisfies the statutory requirement of completing 240 days of continuous service, the protection under Section 25F becomes equally applicable.

However, considering that the refusal of employment dated back more than two decades and that the workman was nearing the age of superannuation, the High Court held that reinstatement at such a belated stage would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, while upholding the Award on merits insofar as it recorded a finding of illegal refusal of employment, the relief of reinstatement was modified and substituted with payment of lump-sum monetary compensation.

List of Cases Reviewed

Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Coop. Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. 1999 taxmann.com 2781 (SC)/(1999) 6 SCC 82 (para 35)
H.D. Singh v. Reserve Bank of India 1985 taxmann.com 1407 (SC)/(1985) 4 SCC 201 (para 42)
Amit Kumar Dubey v. M.P.P.K. V. V. Co. Ltd [Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 20902 of 2024, dated 29-1- 2025] (para 59)
Hochtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal AIR 1964 SC 1746 (para 62) followed