Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat Through Range Forest ... vs Raysingbhai Jiriyabhai Vasava on 26 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7555/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7555 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICER, NORMAL
RANGE SAGAI & ANR.
Versus
RAYSINGBHAI JIRIYABHAI VASAVA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.DIXA PANDYA, AGP for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 26/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. 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.B.) No.23 of 2015 dated 30.03.2022 whereby, the learned reference court has directed the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman to his original post with continuity of service.
Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:22:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7555/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that respondent herein, had filed the reference before the learned reference court stating that the respondent joined the present petitioner on the post of Forest Guard from 01.05.2007 and he was terminated on 01.05.2014 without following due procedure under the Act. It is contended before the learned reference court by the respondent that though the respondent had served continuously and was assured by the petitioner employer that he would be regularized, but instead on regularization order of termination was passed. Present petitioner appeared before the learned labour court and raised contention that respondent had abandoned his work from 01.05.2014, therefore, no question for termination arises. It is further contended by the present petitioner before the learned labour court that the engagement of the present respondent was as a seasonal employee therefore, on completion of work, his services are required to be terminated. It is contended before the learned reference court that as per the muster roll which is produced for the year 2011 to 2013, the petitioner did not complete 240 days which is prime Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:22:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7555/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined requirement under section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act(hereinafter referred to as the "I.D.Act"). Learned labour court, after considering the submission made by both the parties and on scrutinizing the evidence has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned AGP Ms.Dixa Pandya.
3.1. Learned AGP Ms.Pandya submits that as per the muster roll/ Tarij Patrak, which is part of the record and prepared on the basis of cash book in none of the year, the respondent has completed 240 days and he abandoned the service from 01.05.2014. Learned AGP Ms.Pandya submits that the onus lies on the workman to prove the requirements of 240 days, however, in absence of discharging the said onus, no relief can be granted to the workmen. Learned AGP Ms.Pandya submits that except the statement on oath, no other evidence was adduced to show that respondent has served with the petitioner establishment upto year 2013 continuously. Therefore, also impugned award deserves to be interfered with and this petition is required to be Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:22:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7555/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined allowed.
4. Having considered the arguments advance by learned AGP Ms.Pandya and on referring the record and proceedings which has been called by this Court, it emerges that the statement of claim came to be filed by the respondent workman alleging that he was serving as a Forrest Guard from 01.05.2007 and his services were terminated on 01.05.2014. In the statement of claim, respondent has called for muster roll as well as wage register for all the period which was claimed to have been worked by the respondent. In addition to that the application below Exh.12 seeking production of document was also filed by the respondent which was ordered in favour of the respondent and directions were issued to the present petitioner employer to produce the attendance register from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2013. It is further ordered by the learned labour court in the said order dated 23.01.2017 that in case of non availability of the documents, first party has to file an affidavit in that regard. It is undisputed fact that neither documents which was called for, for the period has been produced, nor the affidavit is filed in compliance with the order. Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:22:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7555/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined The muster roll which is placed on record showing the non compliance of the requirement of section 25(B) of the I.D.Act was up to year 2013, though the order was passed to produce the same for the year 2011-2012 which is preceding year of the termination. In addition to that during the cross-examination of the witness of the petitioner, question was put that whether the respondent had served from 01.05.2007 to 01.05.2014 and the answer was given that he was doing miscellaneous work which suggests that the petitioner who tried to project the case that only up to 2013 the respondent had worked is not true. In addition to that the witness of the present petitioner has also admitted during the cross-examination that the salaries were paid through voucher and the vouchers are lying in the office. It is admitted that as per the order passed below Exh.12, no documents were produced before the learned labour court.
5. At this stage, reference of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of R.M. Yellatti vs The Asst. Executive Engineer, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 106, more particularly para 17 and 18 is necessary which is Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:22:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7555/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined reproduced herein below:-
"17. Analysing the above decisions of this Court, it is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated judgments, we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view 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 earners, there will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the workman (the claimant) 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 the facts of each case. The above decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self-serving statements made by the claimant workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further lay down that mere non-production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management. Lastly, the above judgments lay down the basic principle, namely, that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:22:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7555/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined unless they are perverse. This exercise will depend upon the facts of each case.
18. Now applying the above decision to the facts of the present case, we find that the workman herein had stepped into the witness box. He had called upon the management to produce the nominal muster rolls for the period commencing from 22-11-1988 to 20-6-1994. This period is the period borne out by the certificate (Ext. W-1) issued by the former Assistant Executive Engineer. The evidence in rebuttal from the side of the management needs to be noticed. The management produced five nominal muster rolls (NMRs), out of which 3 NMRs, Exts. M-1, M-2 and M-3, did not even relate to the period concerned. The relevant NMRs produced by the management were Exts. M-4 and M-5, which indicated that the workmen had worked for 43 days during the period 21-1-1994 to 20-2-1994 and 21-3-1994 to 20-4- 1994 respectively. There is no explanation from the side of the management as to why for the remaining period the nominal muster rolls were not produced. The Labour Court has rightly held that there is nothing to disbelieve the certificate (Ext. W-1). The High Court in its impugned judgment has not given reasons for discarding the said certificate. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have interfered with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 7-6-2000 in Writ Petition No. 17636 of 2000. This is not, therefore, a case where the allegations of the workman are founded merely on an affidavit. He has produced cogent evidence in support of his case. The workman was working in SD-1, Athani and Ext. W-1 was issued by the former Assistant Executive Engineer, Hipparagi Dam Construction Division No. 1, Athani 591 Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:22:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7555/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined
304. In the present case, the defence of the management was that although Ext. W-1 refers to the period 22-11-1988 to 20-6-1994, the workman had not worked as a daily-wager on all days during that period. If so, the management was duty-bound to produce before the Labour Court the nominal muster rolls for the relevant period, particularly when it was summoned to do so. We are not placing this judgment on the shifting of the burden. We are not placing this case on drawing of adverse inference. In the present case, we are of the view that the workman had stepped in the witness box and his case that he had worked for 240 days in a given year was supported by the certificate (Ext. W-1). In the circumstances, the Division Bench of the High Court had erred in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact."
6. Having considered the above ratio and the facts of the instant case, it emerges that though petitioner was directed to produce the relevant documents for the year 2012-2013 he failed in producing the said documents additionally neither any affidavit was filed explaining the cause for not producing the said record. When the witness of the petitioner has admitted the fact that the vouchers are lying in the office, then the learned labour court is justifying in drawing the adverse inference against the present petitioner.
7. As the learned labour court has not granted any back wages to the present respondent and relief of Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:22:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7555/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025 undefined reinstatement was only granted with continuity of service, this Court did not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment, hence the petition deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
8. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri Jul 04 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Jul 05 01:22:02 IST 2025