Gujarat High Court
Ravi Rajeshbhai Jethva vs Junagadh Municipal Corporation on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8807/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8807 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
RAVI RAJESHBHAI JETHVA
Versus
JUNAGADH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DIGANT B KAKKAD(6523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NIYATI D CHAUHAN(9082) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 22/07/2025
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.41 of 2022, dated 11.03.2025, dismissing the reference filed by the present petitioner.
2. The gist of the case is that the petitioner was serving on the post of Peon since 01.02.2017 and was getting monthly wages of Rs.4,000/-. As per the allegations made in the reference, his service was terminated on 10.01.2020, alleging a breach of Section 25G, H & F. The dispute was raised before the learned Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8807/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined Reference Court, which was culminated into the reference being Reference Case No.41 of 2022. The learned Court, after examining the evidence on record, has dismissed the reference, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Gohil for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms. Chauhan for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Gohil submits that the production application came to be filed by the present petitioner below Exh.9, 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 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 Hon'ble Apex Court that in the absence of complying with the order passed under the production Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8807/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined 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 advocate Ms. Chauhan, 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 20/3, showing the salary which was credited for the months from February, 2017 to March, 2017. 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 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.33/4 to Exh.33/7 to show that the petitioner has not Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8807/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined 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 Peon in the Urban Health Centre from 01.02.2017 to 10.01.2020. In support of his claim, the bank statement was produced below Exh.46 of Canara Bank for the period of February, 2017 to May, 2017. In addition to the above statement, the application below Exh.9 was filed, seeking production from the respondent. In compliance with the order passed in the production application, the respondent has produced the payment advice/xerox below Exh.33/2, the details of the wage register below Exh.33/1, the muster roll below Exh.33/4, attendance roster below Exh.33/5 and the bank pass- book below Exh.33/8.
6.1 On referring to the said documents, it emerges that to Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/8807/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025 undefined discharge the onus, the petitioner had produced limited documents showing the payment of salary for the months of February, 2017 to May, 2017, instead of producing the details of the preceding year. Even if one would refer the same, it emerges that during February 2017, the petitioner had worked for 15 days; in March 2017, 15 days and in May 2017, 15 days. As against the same Exh.33/1 to 33/8 suggest 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.
7. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Fri Jul 25 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 26 00:12:52 IST 2025