Gujarat High Court
Jivuben Karsanbhai Parmar vs District Panchayat, Surendranagar on 11 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17964/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17964 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
JIVUBEN KARSANBHAI PARMAR
Versus
DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, SURENDRANAGAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NILESH M SHAH(780) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 11/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1 and 2.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the learned labour court in Reference (L.C.S.) No.18 of Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:56:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17964/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined 1996 dated 01.07.2021 whereby, the reference filed by the present petitioner came to be dismissed.
3. "It is the case of the present petitioner that he was appointed as a daily wager with Respondent No. 1 on 01.11.1988 and worked continuously for more than 240 days in each year. As alleged, his services were orally terminated on 13.11.1992 without following the procedure prescribed under the Act. Challenging the termination, a dispute was raised before the learned Labour Court, which culminated in a reference. Initially, the learned Labour Court allowed the reference in favour of the present petitioner by granting the relief of reinstatement with 20% back wages vide order dated 30.11.1995. However, a restoration application was filed under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966, which was rejected by the learned Labour Court. That rejection was challenged before this Court by filing a writ petition, being Special Civil Application No. 10264 of 2007, which was allowed and the ex-parte award passed by the learned labour court came to be set aside and the reference was remanded back to the learned labour court. Thereafter, the learned reference Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:56:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17964/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined Court reconsidered the matter afresh and passed an award dismissing the reference, which is now under challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nilesh.M.Shah for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the respondent.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Shah submits that the only ground on which the reference came to be rejected was that the petitioner did not complete 240 days in preceding year. Learned advocate Mr.Shah submits that, in the additional statement of claim, it was specifically averred by the petitioner that the attendance card, wage slips, and identity card were not provided to him. Therefore, in the absence of these documents, the petitioner was unable to produce them to establish his case. Learned advocate Mr.Shah submits that, although it was contended before the learned Labour Court that the petitioner had worked at Dhrangadhra Methan Road, the learned reference Court relied upon the muster roll produced by the respondent, which pertained to a different work site and did not include the petitioner's name. Learned advocate Mr.Shah submits that instead Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:56:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17964/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined of calling for the muster roll from the location where the petitioner actually worked, the learned reference Court relied solely on the documents already on record. Learned advocate Mr.Shah submits the respondent withheld the best evidence by not producing the relevant muster roll and, rather than drawing an adverse inference against the respondent for such non- production, the learned reference Court proceeded to dismiss the reference. Hence, learned advocate Mr.Shah submits that the impugned award requires interference and the present petition deserves to be allowed.
6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw submits that, indisputably, the muster roll produced below Exh.41 for the period from 1988 to 1992 does not reflect the petitioner's name, indicating that he did not carry out any work during that time. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw submits that no applicarefutetion for production was filed by the petitioner, nor was any evidence adduced to substantiate his claim. Although the burden was on the petitioner to prove his case, he failed to discharge it. Therefore, the learned reference Court has rightly dismissed the reference, and no interference Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:56:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17964/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined is required. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and the evidence placed on record, it emerges that, as per the averments made in the statement of claim as well as in the additional statement of claim, the petitioner contended that he had worked at various locations within Dhrangadhra Taluka and that, at the time of his termination on 13.11.1992, he was posted at Methan Road. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary, in support of his claim. On the other hand, the respondent, in order to refute the petitioner's claim, produced the muster roll at Exhibit 41 for the period from 21.02.1988 to 31.07.1992, indicating that the petitioner had not worked at any of the locations listed therein during the said period. Upon perusal of the said document, it is revealed that the muster roll pertains to 40 different work sites where various employees were engaged. Although Methan Road is not one of the sites listed, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner's case was not Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:56:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17964/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined limited to Methan Road alone. In his additional statement of claim, the petitioner himself stated that he worked at various places in Dhrangadhra Taluka, with Methan Road being the location of his last posting prior to termination. However, the petitioner's name does not appear in the muster roll for any of the 40 listed locations. From the muster roll the name of the present petitioner does not reflect at any places out of the said 40 place. Additionally, the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence, either during cross-examination or by way of documents, to prove that he had completed 240 days of continuous service in the relevant year. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned reference Court has rightly relied on the documentary evidence produced at Exh.41 while dismissing the reference
8. This Court has referred to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 25, wherein it was held that the duty is cast upon the petitioner to prove his case, and in the absence of such proof, no relief can be granted in his favour.
Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:56:40 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17964/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025 undefined
9. In the above background, the petition does not require any interference.
10. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
11. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned court.
12. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 11 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 23:56:40 IST 2025