Gujarat High Court
Alpeshkumar Ramjibhai Vavecha vs Range Forest Officer on 13 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2843/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2843 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
ALPESHKUMAR RAMJIBHAI VAVECHA
Versus
RANGE FOREST OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.ADITYA DAVDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 13/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Junagadh, in Reference (T) No.8 of 2019, dated 15.11.2019, dismissing the reference filed by the present petitioner.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that petitioner was serving as a Daily Wager from 25.09.2010 and his Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:59:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2843/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined services were terminated on 01.09.2018. He was drawing monthly salary of Rs.7,238/- per month at the time of termination. Alleging illegal termination, reference came to be filed which is numbered as Reference (T) No.8 of 2019. Learned Reference Court, after considering the evidence, has disbelieved the case of the present petitioner with regard to the continuous service and dismissed the reference, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Gohil for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Aditya Davda for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Gohil submits that the production application came to be filed by the present petitioner below Exh.7, seeking the production of the documents from the respondent and in the absence of compliance with the above order, the learned Court ought to have drawn an adverse inference in favour of the present petitioner. The learned advocate Mr. Gohil submits that instead of doing the same, the learned Court has shifted the onus on the present petitioner to prove the case and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be interfered with. The learned advocate Mr. Gohil submits that Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:59:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2843/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined various decisions were referred to by the learned Labour Court which were, in fact, in favour of the present petitioner, wherein it was held by the Apex Court that in the absence of complying with the order passed under the production application, the adverse inference ought to have been drawn. The learned advocate Mr. Gohil submits that the learned Reference Court has committed an error in holding that the present petitioner did not establish the requirement of Section 25B by producing cogent material on record. In that background also, the impugned award deserves to be set aside and the present petition is required to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr.Davda, appearing for the employer, has submitted that during the cross- examination of the petitioner - workman, it was admitted by him that the salary was credited in the bank account directly. The workman has produced the bank statement below Mark 9/3, showing the salary which was credited for the months from August, 2011 to August, 2015. To discharge the onus, which is on the workman to prove his case, instead of producing the bank statement for the whole period, the workman has only chosen to produce Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:59:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2843/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined the statement for limited months. As against the same, in compliance with the order passed under the production application, the respondent has produced the evidence below Exh.11/1 to Exh.11/2 to show that the petitioner has not completed 240 days in the preceding year. On considering the same, the learned Court has dismissed the reference. Therefore, it was prayed not to interfere in the impugned award and to dismiss the present petition.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on referring to the evidence, which is part of the record of the learned Reference Court, it emerges that the claim was raised by the present petitioner that he served as a Daily Wager in the Wireless Station from 25.09.2010 to 01.09.2018. In support of his claim, the bank statement was produced below Mark 9/3 of Canara Bank for the period of February, 2017 to May, 2017. In addition to the above statement, the application below Exh.7 was filed, seeking production from the respondent. In compliance with the order passed in the production application, the respondent has produced the payment Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:59:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2843/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined advice/xerox below Mark 11/1 as well as the details of the wage register below Mark 11/2.
6.1. On referring to the said documents, it emerges that to discharge the onus, the petitioner had produced limited documents showing the payment of salary for the months of August, 2011 to August, 2015, instead of producing the details of the preceding year. Even if one would refer the same, it emerges that during 2012, the petitioner had worked for 229 days; in 2013 for 191 days; in 2014 for 154 days and in 2015 for 52 days. As against the same, Mark 11/1 and 11/2 suggests that petitioner had not completed 240 days of service in a preceding year of his termination.
6.2. Consideration overall the evidence, it emerges that no contemporaneous record was produced to suggest that the petitioner has completed 240 days in the preceding year. The learned Court, after referring to the evidence which is part of the record and after assigning cogent and sufficient reasons, has dismissed the reference. In the considered opinion of this Court, no error has been committed by the learned Labour Court, hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:59:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2843/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025 undefined
7. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed.
8. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Thu Aug 14 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Aug 14 21:59:50 IST 2025