Infosys Bpm LTD. vs. Amol Rajaram Jadhav

Held

The Court noted that a separate application filed by the Petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recall of the Respondent as a witness for further cross-examination regarding income generated from his business was pending before the Labour Court. The Petitioner expressed apprehension that the impugned order dated December 6, 2022, might hinder the decision on this pending application. Therefore, the Court clarified that the Labour Court shall proceed to decide the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code, uninfluenced by any of the findings recorded in the order dated December 6, 2022. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition with this direction, leaving all questions on merits in the petition open. The challenge to the order dated May 9, 2023, was not pressed by the Petitioner.

Facts

The Petitioner-employer, Infosys BPM Ltd., challenged two orders of the Labour Court, Pune. The first order, dated December 6, 2022, rejected an application (Exhibit-C-39) seeking production of GST and Income Tax returns from the Respondent-employee. The Petitioner sought these documents to establish that the Respondent was gainfully employed after his services ceased, despite his claim of not being employed. The Respondent had admitted in cross-examination to engaging in computer servicing and maintenance, earning Rs. 5,000-Rs. 6,000/- monthly. The Petitioner discovered GST returns were allotted in the Respondent's name. The second order, dated May 9, 2023, rejected the Petitioner's application for framing and deciding a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the Reference. However, the Petitioner's counsel stated they would not press the challenge to the May 9, 2023 order as the maintainability issue would be decided at the final stage.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Labour Court erred in rejecting the Petitioner-employer's application for production of GST and Income Tax returns filed by the Respondent-employee, considering the Respondent's admission of engaging in business and earning income, and the Petitioner's need to prove gainful employment to offset back wages claims, as per Order 18 Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and relevant case law. Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that the Respondent's admission in cross-examination about earning income from computer servicing and maintenance, coupled with the discovery of GST returns in his name, necessitated the production of these documents to prove gainful employment. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur V/s. Phool Chand (Dead) through Legal Representatives, which discussed the burden of proof for gainful employment and back wages. Respondent's contention: The Respondent argued that the burden of proving the Petitioner's earning of income rests solely on the Petitioner-employer, and therefore, the Respondent should not be compelled to produce documents that would assist the Petitioner in discharging this burden. The Labour Court, according to the Respondent, rightly rejected the application.