JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, J.—This is an appeal of the defendants, appellants herein, from the judgment and order dated 29th March, 2008 passed by the concerned Commissioner, Moradabad, appointed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called as the ‘Commissioner’) awarding a sum of Rs. 1,87,182/- on account of injury sustained by the claimant/respondent herein, alongwith penalty of Rs. 93,000/-. Learned Counsel appearing for both the contesting parties agreed about hearing of the appeal on the informal papers at the stage of admission, accordingly the Court has proceeded. 2. The question arose before the Commissioner about master-servant relationship between the appellants-employer and the respondent-employee, who became injured by the cause of accident. The claimant asserted that he was under the employment of the appellants for last ten years, which the appellants have refused. In such circumstances, the Commissioner called upon the appellants to produce attendance registers and salary registers of the years 2005 and 2006 alongwith those of the relevant year, but the appellants avoided the same and produced the document only for the relevant period to establish that on the date and time of the accident the injured/claimant was not in the employment. The Commissioner disbelieved the statement of the appellants based on the solitary document and discarded their conduct for non-production of the documents, and drew an adverse inference. 3. By preferring this appeal, the appellants contended that onus to prove employment is primarily lying with the employee not with the employer. Therefore, they are not supposed to produce the documents, as such their refusal to produce the documents is appropriate and no adverse inference can be drawn by the Commissioner. 4. Factually, the claimant was working as a mechanic of a machine, which was suddenly stopped from functioning. The claimant became curious to know the cause of non-functioning in order to repair it, when the machine suddenly started functioning but he got no opportunity to escape and met with the accident, which caused loss of his four fingers. The Commissioner determined the disability and loss of earning on the basis of materials available before him and arrived at the aforesaid amount of compensation. However, the quantum of compensation is not the question hereunder but the master-servant relationship. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon various judgments in this regard. The Commissioner determined the disability and loss of earning on the basis of materials available before him and arrived at the aforesaid amount of compensation. However, the quantum of compensation is not the question hereunder but the master-servant relationship. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants relied upon various judgments in this regard. Relying upon AIR 2006 SC 110 , Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Dahyabhai Amarsinh he contended that it is necessary for the workman to produce the relevant material to prove that he has actually worked with the employer for not less than 240 days during the period twelve calendar months preceding the date of termination. Since no proof of receipt of salary or wages or any record or order in this regard was produced; no co-worker was examined; muster roll produced by the employer has not been contradicted, it is improbable that the workman, who claimed to have worked with the employer for such a long period, would not possess any documentary evidence to prove nature of his engagement and the period of work he had undertaken with his employer. Ultimately, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the Courts below have wrongly drawn an adverse inference for non-production of the records for ten years by the employer. He has also relied upon AIR 2004 SC 1639 , Workmen of Nilgiri Co-op. Mkt. Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, where interpretation of burden of proof is given, as follows: “47. It is a well-settled principle of law that the person who sets up a plea of existence of relationship of employer and employee, the burden would be upon him. 48. In N.C. John v. Secretary, Thodupuzha Taluk Shop and Commercial Establishment Workers’ Union and others, 1973 Lab IC 398, the Kerala High Court held : “The burden of proof being on the workmen to establish the employer-employee relationship an adverse inference cannot be drawn against the employer that if he were to produce books of accounts they would have proved employer-employee relationship.” 49. In Swapan Das Gupta and others v. First Labour Court of West Bengal and others, 1976 Lab IC 202, it has been held : “Where a person asserts that he was a workman of the Company, and it is denied by the Company, it is for him to prove the fact. In Swapan Das Gupta and others v. First Labour Court of West Bengal and others, 1976 Lab IC 202, it has been held : “Where a person asserts that he was a workman of the Company, and it is denied by the Company, it is for him to prove the fact. It is not for the Company to prove that he was not an employee of the Company but of some other person.” 6. To get the persuasive value, the Supreme Court relied upon a Single Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court reported in 1976 Lab. I.C. 202, Swapan Das Gupta and others v. First Labour Court of West Bengal and others. In AIR 2002 SC 1147 , Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, the Supreme Court held that filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year without proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period. In AIR 2004 SC 4791 , M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram etc. the Court considered the nature of work and held that employment of people in that local area for the limited job cannot be construed as an employment for a continuous or regular period to work. Therefore, the respondents, in such referred case, cannot claim either permanency or regularisation nor could he claim benefit of completion of 240 days of continuous work in the given year. 7. All the aforesaid cases were discussed from the point of view of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to establish perpetuity of service but not from the point of view of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act, 1923’) to give one time compensation. Therefore, Court’s anxiety is appreciable. But other appreciable thing is although the Workmen’s Compensation Act is part of labour laws but basically it is a beneficial piece of legislation. A beneficial piece of legislation cannot be looked by the eyes of industrial disputes. Equity plays a predominant role to arrive at ‘just’ compensation in summary manner to give accidental benefit to one who sustained injury or became sufferer due to cause of death. A beneficial piece of legislation cannot be looked by the eyes of industrial disputes. Equity plays a predominant role to arrive at ‘just’ compensation in summary manner to give accidental benefit to one who sustained injury or became sufferer due to cause of death. There is no scope of rigid applicability of the law of evidence irrespective of the factum that both the employer and employee are standing on an unequal bargaining position. From the statement of objects and reasons of the Act, 1923 we find that the growing complexity of industry in this country, with the increasing use of machinery and consequent danger to workmen, alongwith the comparative poverty of the workmen themselves, renders it advisable that they should be protected, as far as possible from hardship arising from accidents. A consistent endeavour has been made to give as little opportunity for disputes as possible. Throughout the Bill in the definitions adopted the scales selected, and the exceptions permitted the great aim has been precision in order that, in as few cases as possible should the validity of a claim for compensation or the amount of that claim be open to doubt. At the same time, on the unanimous recommendation of the Committee, provision has been made for special Tribunal to deal cheaply and expeditiously with any disputes that may arise, and generally to assist the parties in a manner which is not possible for the ordinary Civil Courts. Therefore, the aims and objects of the Act, 1923 are more open to pay the compensation to an employee ignoring the procedural difficulties than to refuse. 8. It is also to be considered from a different outlook i.e. social point of view. In a developing country like us huge number of unemployed are standing on the queue, therefore, there is a chance of exploitation. In the services particularly which are of private nature, small units, unorganised sectors, domestic, it is very difficult for an employee to seek any document at the cost of employment. There is always apprehension of losing service. In AIR 2006 SC 678 , Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. v. Ramu Pasi and another, we find although there was no definite material adduced to show that the claimant was employed in casual for the purpose of employer’s trade or business yet, considering the small quantum awarded, a direction was given to pay the same. In AIR 2006 SC 678 , Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd. v. Ramu Pasi and another, we find although there was no definite material adduced to show that the claimant was employed in casual for the purpose of employer’s trade or business yet, considering the small quantum awarded, a direction was given to pay the same. Therefore, equity played a perfect role in making such decision keeping eyes open to the objects and reasons of the Act, 1923, which should not be overlooked by us. 9. That apart, a further pertinent point before us is who is the custodian of the documents i.e. attendance and salary registers etc. to show that such person was not working under the continuance employment of the appellants—obviously the master. Therefore, before any evidence to be led, discovery and inspection of the documents are part of the procedure if it is rigidly followed. The appellants have conveniently avoided production of such documents and only produced the register of the year 2006-07 to establish that the person concerned had not attended his duty on the relevant date and time and/or worked casually. Court can look into any document at any point of time. Section 23 of the Act, 1923 clearly gives power to the Commissioner to compel the production of documents and material objects. If one avoids any document from its production even being custodian, it will obviously create suspicion in the mind of the Court. The Court may think that the document for the date and time is manufactured to avoid the claim, therefore, it is proper to look earlier similar documents chronologically for the sake of continuity to dispel the cloud. Having not so, cloud will remain. 10. As per P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s The Law Lexicon, Second Edition 1997, meaning of ‘custody’ is as follows : “`Custody’ means the actual, physical, or corporeal holding of a document regardless of the right to its possession, for example, a holding of a document by a party as servant or agent of the true owner. B. v. B. (1979) 1 All ER 801, 805 (Famd.)” 11. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, ‘custody’ means “the care and control of a thing or person”. Even under Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called as ‘C.P.C.’) custodian of documents will be directed for discovery by interrogatories under Rule 1 therein. B. v. B. (1979) 1 All ER 801, 805 (Famd.)” 11. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, ‘custody’ means “the care and control of a thing or person”. Even under Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called as ‘C.P.C.’) custodian of documents will be directed for discovery by interrogatories under Rule 1 therein. An application for discovery of documents can be made under Rule 12 therein. Protection of the documents can be made under Rule 14. As per Rule 16, inspection can be made. Notice to produce the documents can be given under Rule 16. Order of inspection can be made under Rule 18 therein. Under Section 23 therein the Commissioner shall have the powers of the Civil Court under the C.P.C. for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and/or enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compel a party for production of the documents and material objects. Even under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter in short called as the ‘Evidence Act’) a Judge has power to put question or order the production of any document in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties, about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of the documents or things; and neither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order. Only after discovery and inspection at the time of witness action Court will consider burden of proof and discharge of onus. Therefore, it is far to say that a party can refuse the Court from producing documents for its satisfaction. 12. We find from Sarkar’s Law of Evidence, Sixteenth Edition 2007, page 1404, “Proper Custody”, as follows : “Proper Custody”.-[Proof and Effect of].—Proper custody has been explained thus by TINDAL CJ. in Bishop of Meath v. Marquis of Winchester, 3 Bing NC 198 p 200 : “Documents found in a place in which, and under the care of person with whom such paper might naturally and reasonably be expected to be found, are precisely the custody which gives authenticity to documents found within it; for it is not necessary that they should be found in the best and most proper place of deposit. If documents continued in such custody, there never would be any question as to their authenticity; but it is when documents are found in other than the proper place of deposit, that the investigation commences, whether it was reasonable and natural under the circumstances in the particular case, to expect that they should have been in the place where they are actually found; for it is obvious, that, while there can be only one place of deposit strictly and absolutely proper, there may be various and many that are reasonable and probable, though differing in degree; some being more so, some less; and in those cases the proposition to be determined is, whether the actual custody is so reasonably and properly to be accounted for, that it impresses the mind with the conviction that the instrument found in such custody must be genuine. That such is the character and description of the custody, which is held sufficiently genuine, to render a document admissible appears from all the cases.” 13. According to us, when burden of proof is static, onus is flexible. Therefore, as and when the Commissioner called upon certain documents to be produced from the real custodian of the same to come to an appropriate conclusion, refusal thereof by the party cannot be said to be proper. A party is bound by the direction of the Court to assist it for the purpose of ascertaining the truth. Had the master complied with the direction and the servant called upon to prove but failed, it could have been scenario comparable with referred judgements. In this case, the substantial question is not the burden of proof but shifting of onus to dispel the cloud when the Court called upon to satisfy itself to come to an appropriate finding. If one party tries to avoid the Court, it is entitled to draw an adverse inference. 14. Thus, in totality we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the judgment and order impugned in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed even at the stage of admission, however, without imposing any cost. 15. The amount deposited by the appellants as lying with the Commissioner concerned will be released in favour of the claimant as early as possible. Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—I agree. ————