Gujarat High Court
Malivad Bhawanbhai Ramabhai vs The Deputy Executive Engineer, Bhadar ... on 15 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7984/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7984 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7997 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8139 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13130 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13186 of 2022
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13925 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
yes
==========================================================
MALIVAD BHAWANBHAI RAMABHAI
Versus
THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BHADAR CANAL SUB DIVISION
==========================================================
Appearance in Special Civil Application Nos. 7984, 7997, 8139 of 2022
MR U T MISHRA FOR MR HB SINGH(2073) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR MANOHAR RAHEVAR, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance in Special Civil Application Nos. 13130, 13186, 13925 of 2022
MR U T MISHRA FOR MR HB SINGH(2073) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HARSH SHAH, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 15/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned AGPs waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-
Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:00:12 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7984/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined State in respective petitions.
2 Since the issue raised in the these petitions are similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. The facts of Special Civil Application No. 7984 of 2022 are taken for the purpose of adjudication.
3 This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court, Godhra, in Reference (T) No. 16 of 2014 and other allied References, whereby the learned Labour Court has awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 80,000/- along with reinstatement as well as back wages.
4 It is the case of the present petitioner that the present petitioner was working under the respondent-employer. It is contended in the statement of claim that they were working since March 1990 and were terminated in the year 2011 without following the due procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the I.D. Act"). Therefore, claiming the relief of reinstatement, the Reference came to be filed in the year 2014, i.e., after a delay of three years, and the same was decided in favour of the Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:00:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7984/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined respondent by granting the relief of lump sum compensation, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
5 Heard the learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra for the petitioner and the learned AGPs Mr.Rahevar and MR.Harsh Shah for the respondent-State.
6 Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that, to establish the claim of continuity of service, an application for production came to be filed, which, though ordered in favour of the petitioner, has not been complied with by the respondent-employer. It is contended that, in absence of compliance with the said order, the learned Labour Court has drawn an adverse inference and believed the case of continuity of service as provided under Section 25B of the I.D. Act. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that, after holding the termination illegal, the learned Court could have awarded the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, and on getting the said relief, the petitioner would be eligible to get the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988.
6.1 Learned advocate Mr. Mishra further submits that, in identically situated cases, this Court has converted the relief of lump sum compensation Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:00:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7984/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined into the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, and subsequently, orders have been passed to grant the benefit of G.R. dated 17.10.1988. Learned advocate Mr. Mishra submits that, by not granting the relief of reinstatement, the petitioner has been deprived of getting the benefit of regularization provided under the G.R. dated 17.10.1988, and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with by granting the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service.
7 Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Rahevar submits that the State has decided not to challenge the order passed by the learned Labour Court, and the petitioner was informed to collect the lump sum compensation vide communication dated 29.09.2020. It is submitted by learned AGP Mr. Rahevar that, after receiving the said communication, instead of accepting the amount towards compensation, the writ petition came to be filed before this Court. It is further submitted by learned AGP Mr. Rahevar that, as only a meager amount was granted, though the respondent had not worked for a single day, as per the contention raised before the learned Labour Court by the respondent- employer, instead of challenging the order, the State deemed it fit to accept the award and to pay the Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:00:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7984/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined lump sum compensation. Therefore, no error has been committed by the learned Labour Court, and the petition deserves to be dismissed.
8 Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, and on referring to the reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court while awarding the lump sum compensation, it emerges that the statement of claim came to be filed by the petitioner-employee stating that in March 1990 the appointment was made and in March 2011 the termination was ordered. No specific date of either joining or relieving is mentioned in the statement of claim, in the chief examination, or during the course of adjudication. The burden, which was on the petitioner to prove his case, sought to be discharged by mere filing an application for production, which was ordered in favour of the petitioner by directing the respondent to produce the documentary evidence of the last three years. It is contended by the respondent, in response to the directions issued, that as the petitioner did not work for a single day, and as the muster roll system has been banned after the year 1998, the documents sought to be produced are not available. However, by drawing an adverse inference in favour of the petitioner, the learned Labour Court Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:00:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7984/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined has believed the case of the petitioner regarding continuity of service for 21 years and awarded the relief in favour of the petitioner.
9 On referring to the cross-examination of the petitioner, it emerges that the petitioner had candidly admitted that no procedure had been followed while his appointment was made, nor had he given the name of the officer under whose authority the appointment was made. He did not recollect the date of appointment, nor stated the date of termination. He also admitted that the payment of monthly wages of Rs.1500/-, but under whose authority the same was paid, has not been stated. He did not mention how many places he had worked; no documentary evidence was placed on record to show at which particular places or for how many times he had worked. For completion of 240 days, he was not able to produce any documentary evidence, as the same was not provided by the employer. He was doing miscellaneous work and was getting monthly wages of Rs.100/-.
9.1 As against the same, on referring to the chief examination of the witness of the respondent, it emerges that a specific contention was raised that the petitioner did not work for a single day. The Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:00:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7984/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined contention with regard to the existence of the respondent department prior to 01.05.1997 was denied by the witness. It is also contended that, since the muster roll system had been stopped from 1998, there was no question of the petitioner working after 1998 till 2011, as stated by him. It is also stated that, as the Bhadar Canal Division is a different department, and the petitioner did not mention the particular department under which he worked for a particular period, the therefore muster roll sought to be produced would not be available. It is also denied that the contention raised in the statement of claim with regard to the generation of electricity was ever the work of the respondent-employer, and in that background, it is contended that, in the absence of working even for a single day, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief whatsoever.
9.2 During the cross-examination of the witness of the respondent-employer, the suggestions put with regard to working at Division No. 6, providing the ID card, and appointment orders at the relevant point of time, were specifically denied. It emerges from the cross-examination that the witness has specifically stated that the Bhadar Canal Division came into existence from Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:00:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7984/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined 01.05.1987, and the records of the previous divisions would not be available with the witness. However, contention made in chief examination of not working for a single day remain unchallenged. The suggestion with regard to maintaining the seniority list was also answered in the negative. The petitioner herein, while claiming continuity of service for 21 years, did not give the name of the officer under whose authority he had worked, who paid the wages, or at which place; and merely by filing the application for production, the learned Court has drawn an adverse inference and believed the case of continuity of service.
10 At this stage the reference of the decision rendered by the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Uttarakhand v. Sureshwati, reported in (2021) 3 SCC 108 the relevant paragraph is required to be referred which is reproduced herein below:
26.A Division Bench of this Court in Bhavnagar Municipal Corpn. v. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha [Bhavnagar Municipal Corpn. v. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha, (2014) 16 SCC 130 : (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 513] held that : (SCC pp. 134-35, para 7)
7. It is fairly well settled that for an order of termination of the services of a workman to be held illegal on account of non-payment of retrenchment compensation, it is essential for the workman to Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:00:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7984/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined establish that he was in continuous service of the employer within the meaning of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For the respondent to succeed in that attempt he was required to show that he was in service for 240 days in terms of Section 25-
B(2)(a)(ii). The burden to prove that he was in actual and continuous service of the employer for the said period lay squarely on the workman. The decisions of this Court in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani [Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, (2002) 3 SCC 25 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 367] , Municipal Corpn., Faridabad v. Siri Niwas [Municipal Corpn., Faridabad v. Siri Niwas, (2004) 8 SCC 195 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1062] , M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram [M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram, (2004) 8 SCC 246 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1092] , Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 8 SCC 161 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1055] , Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai [Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai, (2005) 8 SCC 450 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 1167] and R.M. Yellatti v. Executive Engineer [R.M. Yellatti v. Executive Engineer, (2006) 1 SCC 106 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 1] unequivocally recognise the principle that the burden to prove that the workman had worked for 240 days is entirely upon him. So also the question whether an adverse inference could be drawn against the employer in case he did not produce the best evidence available with it, has been the subject-matter of pronouncements of this Court in Municipal Corpn., Faridabad v. Siri Niwas [Municipal Corpn., Faridabad v. Siri Niwas, (2004) 8 SCC 195 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1062] and M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram [M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram, (2004) 8 SCC 246 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1092] , reiterated in RBI v. S. Mani [RBI v. S. Mani, (2005) 5 SCC 100 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 609] . This Court has held that only because some documents have not been produced by the management, an adverse Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:00:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7984/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined inference cannot be drawn against it."
11 On referring to the above decisions, in the considered opinion of this Court, the drawing of an adverse inference would depend on the facts of each case and cannot be applied universally without examining the facts. It is the duty of the employee to prove his case independently, and only after showing some evidence, whether documentary, oral, or through cross-examination of the witness, can file an application for production of the document or request the Court to draw an adverse inference. Reliance was placed by the petitioner on the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Chhatrasing Marutising Bariya in Special Civil Application No. 10316 of 2020. On referring to the said decision, it emerges that there also the adverse inference was drawn on non- compliance with the directions for producing the wage register, vouchers, and other documents for the last three years. However, it is further recorded that the muster roll examined by the learned Labour Court revealed that the appointment of the petitioner was made in the year 1991 and was terminated in the year 1997. That was not the case herein; therefore, the contention of the petitioner, i.e., that the same was an identical case where the lump sum compensation was converted into the relief of Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:00:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7984/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined reinstatement, cannot be accepted.
12 Learned advocate Mr. Mishra has relied on the list produced by the respondent at page 83 and submitted that, except six workmen, all other employees were reinstated pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, and one of the employees was made permanent pursuant to the G.R. issued by the Government. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, the list cannot be relied upon as referring to identically situated employees unless the facts of each case are examined independently.
13 On the basis of the said order, this Court, in other cogent matters, has awarded the relief of reinstatement, which was also relied upon by the learned advocate. However, there also attendance records were available therefore, each case has to be examined separately on the basis of the evidence, and that would not be a ground for claiming the relief of reinstatement, particularly when the petitioner fails to establish his case of working with the respondent for a single day.
14 It is a sorry state of affairs that the State has accepted the award, due to the reason that as the relief of reinstatement and continuity of service has not been granted, a meager amount has to be paid to Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:00:12 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7984/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/10/2025 undefined the petitioner.
15 It is painful to note that when the petitioner is not entitled to a single pie in the absence of having worked even a single day, public money is being wasted in this manner. However, the fact remains that the award has not been challenged by the State. In the absence of such challenge, this Court would have no option but to dismiss the petition and confirm the award passed by the learned Labour Court.
16 Resultantly, these petitions are dismissed. The award passed by the learned Labour Court, Godhra, in Reference (T) No. 16 of 2014 and other allied References is confirmed. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) M.M.MIRZA Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by M.M.MIRZA(HC01407) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Oct 17 03:00:12 IST 2025