Gujarat High Court
District Development Officer vs Arvindbhai Nathabhai Dodiyar on 15 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11075 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11073 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11074 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & ORS.
Versus
ARVINDBHAI NATHABHAI DODIYAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS REENA M KAMANI(6007) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 15/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since the issues raised in these petitions are similar in nature, they are being decided by a common order. For the purpose of adjudication, the facts of Special Criminal Application No. 11075 of 2020 are being taken as the lead case.
Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:47:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms.Reena Kamani waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent.
3. The present petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 24.01.2020 passed by the learned Labour Court, Kalol, in Reference (T) Case Nos. 241 of 2013, 242 of 2013, and 243 of 2013, which are impugned in Special Civil Application Nos. 11073 of 2020, 11074 of 2020, and 11075 of 2020, respectively.
4. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent was engaged as a Daily Wager labourer at the Dhamasna Seed Farm, which was initially under the jurisdiction of the Mehsana District Panchayat and was subsequently transferred to the Gandhinagar District Panchayat. The work assigned to the respondent was purely dependent upon its availability and was not of a continuous nature. On the other hand, the respondent's case before the learned Labour Court was that he had been working continuously with the petitioner Seed Farm from the year 1986 up to the date of alleged termination, i.e., 13.07.2013. Seeking the relief of Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:47:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined reinstatement, the respondent filed a reference. The learned Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence adduced by both parties, allowed the reference and passed an award in favour of the respondent, directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 30% back wages, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court .
5. Heard learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Reena Kamani for the respondent.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the nature of work assigned to the respondent was not perennial, but purely dependent on requirement and availability of work. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Munshaw that although the respondent has claimed to have been in service since the year 1983, from the record it reveals that he was a minor at the time of the alleged initial engagement, thereby rendering the said claim implausible. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Munshaw that as per the attendance records produced before this Court, the respondent had worked for only 4 days in the year Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:47:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined 2014-15 and for 31 days in the year 2019-20. Except for these limited periods, there is no record of the respondent having worked with the petitioner. Despite this, the learned labour court, without properly appreciating the documentary evidence and the limited nature of the respondent's engagement, erroneously allowed the reference in favour of the present respondent. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing the present petition.
7. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Kamani, appearing for the respondent, submitted that the respondent had filed the reference challenging the termination that took place in the year 2013. In the statement of claim, a specific averment was made that the respondent had been serving as a labourer since the year 1983, which was not specifically rebutted by the petitioner herein. It is submitted by the learned advocate Ms.Kamani that the learned labour court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, including the cross-examination of the witnesses, rightly concluded that the respondent had rendered Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:47:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined continuous service and was entitled to reinstatement. Accordingly, the learned labour court passed the award directing reinstatement with continuity of service and payment of 30% back wages. Therefore, it is contended that the award is just, proper, and based on appreciation of evidence, and does not warrant any interference.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and upon perusal of the record, it emerges that the dispute pertains to the respondent's claim that he had been serving as a labourer since 1983, and that his services were terminated without following due procedure on 13.07.2013. It further transpires that, prior to filing the present reference, the respondent had approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 13242 of 2000, seeking the benefit of Government Resolution dated 17.10.1988. In the order dated 12.07.2013 passed by this Court in the said petition, it was specifically recorded that the respondents therein were appointed between March 1994 and July 1994 and therefore, the benefit of GR dated 17.10.1988 cannot be granted in favour of the respondent. A copy of the said order forms Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:47:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined part of the record in the present proceedings. It emerges from the record that the false claims are raised by the learned reference court claiming that though they are serving since 1983 their services were terminated without following due procedure of law. While it is true that the petitioner failed to contest the reference proceedings with due diligence by not placing adequate documentary evidence on record or by cross-examining the respondent, it was nonetheless incumbent upon the respondent to approach the court with clean hands and to disclose the true and correct facts. In the absence of such disclosure, no equitable relief can be granted. This Court also called for the records of Special Civil Application No. 13242 of 2000 to verify the respondent's claim regarding the date of joining. The said records confirm that the respondents had joined service only in the year 1994, thereby falsifying the claim of continuous service from 1983. The said averments are made in Civil Application No. 6372 of 2011, which was filed seeking directions for immediate payment of unpaid wages to each of the petitioners therein.
8.1. In the opinion of this Court, it is of utmost necessity Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:47:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined that when the party approaches the Court, he must place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is any suppression of the material facts on the part of the employee or if twisted facts have been placed before the court, the court may refuse to grant relief in favour of the person.
8.2. If one would examine the merits of the case, it emerges that the onus was shifted on the management without firstly determining on the basis of cogent evidence that, the workman had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Neither any documentary evidence was produced, nor any production application was filed by the respondent to summon the relevant records. However, the learned court, while drawing the adverse inference has held that in absence of any evidence on record, the claim of the respondent is required to be accepted. 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 filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as a sufficient Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:47:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that the workman had, infact worked for 240 days in a year. In the case of Municipal Corporation Faridabad versus Siri Nivas reported in 2004 8 SCC 195 it is held that the burden was on the workman to show that he worked for 240 days in the preceding year prior to his retrenchment. It is further held that it would be different where, inspite of directions by the court, the evidence is withheld. Presumption as to adverse inference for non production of the evidence is always optional and one of the factor which is required to be taken into consideration in the background of the facts involved in the lis, the presumption thus is not obligatory because notwithstanding the the intentional non production other circumstances may exit, upon which such intentional non production may be found justifiable on some reasonable grounds. A three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Manager Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore Versus S.Mani and others reported in 2005 5 SCC 100 has held that the Tribunal's view that the burden was on the employer was erroneous, the Bench held that initial burden of Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:47:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined proof was on the workman to show that he had completed 240 days of service. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Batala Cooperative Sugar Mill Limited versus Sovaran Singh reported in 2005 8 SCC 481. The well known judgment of R.M. Yellatti vs The Asst. Executive Engineer, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 106, wherein, it is held that drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend on facts of each case, mere affidavit or self serving statement made by the claimant/workman will not suffice the matter of discharge of burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the given year. It is further held that mere non production of muster roll per-say without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be ground for the tribunal to draw adverse inference against the management. In the case of Ranip Nagar Palika versus Babuji Gabhaji Thakore reported in 2007 13 SCC 343 it is held that the burden of proof lies on the workman to show that he worked continuously for 240 days and it is for the workman to adduce the evidence apart from examining Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:47:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined himself to prove the factum of being employment of the employer. The case on hand wherein the relief of reinstatement was granted undisputably relying on the affidavit of the workman and shifting the onus on the employer to prove that the workman did not complete 240 days without calling for any evidence either through oral witness or through production application. In the considered opinion of this Court, reasons assigned by the learned labour court is unsustainable, hence the impugned award deserves to be set aside. However, at the same time, parties are required to be given opportunity to lead their evidence before the learned labour court.
9. Resultantly these petitions are allowed. The impugned order dated 24.01.2020 passed by the learned labour court, Kalol, in Reference (T) Case Nos. 241 of 2013, 242 of 2013, and 243 of 2013, which are impugned in Special Civil Application Nos. 11073 of 2020, 11074 of 2020, and 11075 of 2020, respectively is hereby set aside. The reference be restored to its original file and be remanded back to the learned labour court to decide afresh, without being influenced by the observation Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:47:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025 undefined made herein.
10. All the rights and contentions shall be kept open.
11. Rule made absolute.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:47:08 IST 2025