Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Mohabatsinh Lalsinh Zala on 9 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1050/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1050 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
MOHABATSINH LALSINH ZALA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
YUVRAJ BRAHMBHATT, AGP for the petitioner(s) no. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed challenging the award passed by the learned labour court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.659 of 2016 whereby the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent to its original post with continuity of service and without back wages. Additionally, costs of Rs.5,000/- was awarded while allowing the Reference by the learned labour Court.
Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 02:32:23 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1050/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined
2. The gist of the case is that the respondent No.1 was working with the petitioner since 01.07.2010, and his services were alleged to have been discontinued from 15.10.2015. Challenging the order of the termination, the the respondent raised the dispute before the learned Reference Court, which registered being a Reference (T) No.659 of 2016 wherein the relief of reinstatement was claimed. During the pendency of the Reference, an application below Exhibit 15 was filed seeking the production of the relevant documentary evidence by the respondent No.1, the said application was ordered in favour of the workman. However, neither any evidence adduced nor was any affidavit filed explaining the non- production of the evidence which was sought. Learned Reference court, after considering the evidence adduced, concluded that the termination order was passed illegally and therefore, granted the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, without back wages, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard the learned AGP Mr.Brahmbhatt for the petitioner-
State and learned advocate Mr.Mishra for the respondent.
4. Learned AGP Mr.Brahmbhatt submits that the learned Reference court has relied on the bare words of the respondent on completion of 240 days, service for holding termination is illegal. Learned AGP Mr.Brahmbhatt submits that no evidence was adduced by the respondent to show that he served continuously since Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 02:32:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1050/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined 05 years. It is submitted by the learned AGP Mr.Brahmbhatt that despite the breach of Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not established, learned Reference court has allowed the Reference in favour of the respondent.
4.1. Learned AGP Mr.Brahmbhatt submits that burden to prove the continuity of service lies with the workman however, without discharging the same, the impugned award is passed by the learned Reference court and therefore, also the petition is required to be allowed by setting aside the award passed by the learned labour court.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra submits that though an application for the production of documents was filed below Exhibit 15 and the same was ordered in favour of the present respondent, the compliance of the order was not made. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra further submits that as per the admission of the witness of the petitioner, it was established that the respondent has served continuously served from 01.07.2010 to 15.10.2015. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra further submits that after serving continuously for 05 years, the respondent was terminated without following due procedure under the I.D.Act. Therefore, the learned Reference Court rightly allowed the Reference in favour of the respondent, and no inference is warranted and petition deserves to be dismissed.
Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 02:32:23 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1050/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on referring the reasons assigned by the learned Reference Court, it is an undisputed fact that the application below Exhibit 15 was filed seeking the production of the documents by the respondent. Although, the application was allowed in favor of the respondent, neither the documents were produced, nor any affidavits were filed before the learned Reference court. It is also not disputed that the witness of the petitioner had admitted during his cross examination that, as per the record maintained by the petitioner, the respondent had continuously served from 01.07.2010 to 15.10.2015.
7. From the above admission, it is evident that the record is available, however, the same did not produce and therefore, learned Reference Court has rightly drawn adverse inference against the present petitioner concluding that if the same would be produced that would go against the present petitioner.
8. It is true that initial burden to show the continuity of service is on the workman however, that burden can be discharged by making positive assertion and by filing the application of the production of the necessary evidence on record. At this stage, this Court has referred the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of R.M. Yellatti vs The Asst. Executive Engineer, reported in Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 02:32:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1050/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined (2006) 1 SCC 106 is required to be referred, wherein it is held by the Apex Court in the above case that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms would not apply in the proceedings under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the judgments, it was held that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily waged earner, there will be no letter of appointment or order of termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the workman can only call upon the employer to produce before the court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case.
9. This Court has also referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Director, Fisheries Terminal Division versus Bhikubhai Meghajibhai Chavda, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 47 wherein it is observed that since the employer inexplicably failed to produce the complete record and the muster roll inspite of the directions of the learned labour court, the learned labour Court was justified in concluding that the workman had Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 02:32:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1050/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025 undefined completed continuous service of 240 days during the preceding year.
10. Considering the above decisions, this Court is of the view that in absence of compliance of the directions issued in the production application, learned labour Court had no choice but to presume that if the evidences were produced, it would have gone against the employer. In that background, the learned labour Court has rightly drawn an adverse inference against the present petitioner and concluded the Reference in favour of the respondent.
11. As this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, this petition deserves to be dismissed, being devoid of merits.
12. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Tue Apr 22 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 02:32:23 IST 2025