Gujarat High Court
Vjerambhai Dhanjibhai Jani vs Section Officer Shri Sathra Section on 9 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4630/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4630 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
VJERAMBHAI DHANJIBHAI JANI
Versus
SECTION OFFICER SHRI SATHRA SECTION & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.KRUTARTH K PANDYA(7092) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned labour court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No.29 of 2016 dated 16.05.2024 whereby, reference filed by the present petitioner-workman came to be rejected.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that petitioner was working as a Chowkidar with the respondent-Authority Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4630/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined since 01.12.1982 and his services were terminated in violation of the provisions under section25(f), 25(g) and 25(h) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 30.04.2008. Challenging the order of termination, the dispute was raised before the learned reference court which was registered being Reference (L.C.B.) No.29 of 2016. As the petitioner was unable to remain present to file the statement of claim, the learned reference court has awarded the reference in absence of the present petitioner by dismissing the reference. On 29.11.2018, as ex-parte award was passed, therefore, application came to be filed under Rule 26(A) of the Gujarat Industrial Dispute Rules being Application No.32 of 2021 which was rejected by the learned labour court on 15.06.2022. Challenging the order passed in the Miscellaneous Application, petition came to be filed before this Court being Special Civil Application No.14964 of 2023 wherein, this Court has quashed the order passed rejecting the restoration application and remitted the matter back to the learned labour court to decide on merits. The said order was passed on 06.09.2023 after restoring the reference before the Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4630/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined learned labour court.
3. The statement of claim came to be filed by the petitioner-workman on 30.10.2023 and the respondent has also filed the written statement on 08.01.2024. The present petitioner has also filed the production application demanding attendance sheet, salary sheet and voucher from the date of appointment till the date of termination. It is the case of the present petitioner that though the said production application was ordered in favour of the present petitioner, no documents were produced. Learned labour court, after considering the submission made by both the parties has awarded the reference in favour of the present petitioner which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Krutarth Pandya for the petitioner.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya submits that petitioner has worked continuously from 1982-2008 and has completed 240 days of continuous service. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya submits that production application, though ordered in favour of the present petitioner, no documents were produced, however, learned reference Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4630/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined court instead of drawing adverse inference has rejected the reference of the present petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya submits that learned reference court has committed error in rejecting the reference on the ground of delay as there are catena of decisions in which it is held that if termination is found illegal then the relief of reinstatement can be converted by granting the relief of lump sum compensation. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya submits that without considering the same the impugned order is passed, therefore, the same is required to be interfered with and the petition is required to be allowed.
6. Having considered the arguments placed by the learned advocate and on referring the evidence adduced before the learned labour court it appears that the respondent has claimed that he was serving as a Chowkidar since 1982 and he was getting daily wages of Rs.65/- and his last day of working was 30.04.2008. He admitted in cross-examination that after the year 2000, the Government has stopped the muster roll system. It emerges from the impugned award that though the salary was stated to have been deposited in the account Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4630/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined of petitioner, no documentary evidence was shown to establish the case. Through the Right to Information Act, the information was sought which was supplied by the respondent which was produced below mark 11/2 suggesting the presence of the petitioner only in the year 1982-83 for three days and thereafter, in none of the year his presence has been shown. It is admitted by the present petitioner during the cross-examination that he did not recollect his first day of working neither is having any documents to establish the continuity of service. It is true that the production application was filed by the petitioner seeking certain documents, however, when through evidence of the present petitioner it is established that after 1982-83 the petitioner has not worked with the respondent-employer, in the opinion of this Court, there is no requirement of drawing the adverse inference in favour of the present petitioner.
7. This Court has referred to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Range Forest Officer Vs . S.T. Hadimani reported in 2002 (3) SCC 25 wherein, it is held that it was for the workman to prove that he Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:30:18 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4630/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined had worked with the employer. If the said claim is denied by the appellant then it was for the claimant to lead the evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding to his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be recorded as a sufficient evidence for the Court to come to the conclusion that workman had in fact worked for 240 days in a year and if the burden that lies on the party is not discharged, he must fail. In that background this Court did not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment hence the petition deserves to be dismissed.
8. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Apr 11 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 12 01:30:18 IST 2025