Rajasthan High Court in the case of Giriraj S/o Kanwarlal Suman vs. Regional Forest Officer &Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1243/2016, examined the claim of an employee who sought an adverse inference against his employer for failing to produce certain records. The employee argued that this failure should result in a presumption that he had met the minimum work requirements under the ID Act, for invoking the procedures related to termination. The Court, however, held that the onus of proving compliance with the ID Act lies squarely on the employee. The Court further emphasized that the employee must provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he has worked the required 240 days in a year, as stipulated under Section 25B of the ID Act. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Range Forest Officer vs. S.T. Hadimani [(2002) 3 SCC 25], the Court clarified that an affidavit alone cannot be considered sufficient evidence to establish this fact. In light of this, the Court concluded that the employee’s termination was not illegal and that the procedures under the ID Act were not applicable in this case.
Also read : Subsistence Allowance cannot be denied merely because the employee was not regular : P&H HC
Stay connected with us on social media platforms for instant updates click here to join our LinkedIn, Twitter & Facebook
