Gujarat High Court
Ashaben Lalabhai Parbat vs Deputy Executive Engineer on 18 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13021/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13021 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
ASHABEN LALABHAI PARBAT
Versus
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
JWALIT B SONEJI(7895) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 18/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 18.05.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhavnagar, in Reference (LCB) No. 19 of 2019, whereby the reference filed by the petitioner was rejected on the ground of an unexplained delay of 15 years.
2. The case of the present petitioner is that he was appointed on 01.01.1993 and was illegally terminated from service on 30.04.2003. In order to challenge the said termination and to seek the relief of reinstatement, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:46:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13021/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined culminated in the filing of Reference (LCB) No. 19 of 2019. The learned Labour Court, after considering the submissions of both parties and on observing that the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to establish a violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or to prove continuity of service, dismissed the reference, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jwalit Soneji for the petitioner.
3.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Soneji submits that although the reference was filed after a delay of more than 15 years, once the petitioner had prima facie established a case regarding the violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the learned Labour Court ought to have considered granting relief in the form of lump sum compensation, rather than outrightly dismissing the reference. Learned advocate Mr.Soneji submits that the petitioner had filed an application seeking production of the wage register and attendance sheet, which was duly allowed by the Court; however, the said order was not complied with by the employer. Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:46:20 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13021/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined Despite this non-compliance, the learned Labour Court failed to draw an adverse inference in favour of the petitioner and proceeded to dismiss the reference. In view of the above, it is submitted that the impugned award warrants interference by this Court and, therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner, it emerges from the record that, as per the statement of claim filed at Exh.5, the petitioner's case is that she joined service on 01.01.1993 and was terminated on 30.04.2003. The complaint was filed on 09.10.2018 and was subsequently referred to the learned Labour Court on 24.01.2019. It is not in dispute that the reference was raised after an inordinate delay of 15 years, and no cogent or satisfactory explanation for such delay has been offered by the petitioner. The learned Labour Court has taken into consideration the petitioner's cross-examination, wherein she admitted that she does not possess any documentary evidence to establish continuity of service. Furthermore, she failed to produce any material to demonstrate that other employees were engaged in her Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:46:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13021/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined place or that juniors were retained at the time of her termination. Although an application at Exh.7 was filed seeking production of the wage register and salary slips, this Court is of the considered view that the primary burden to establish illegal termination lies upon the petitioner. In this context, this Court has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State Of Uttarakhand & Ors. Versus Smt. Sureshwati reported in (2021) 3 SCC 108 wherein the Apex Court held that :-
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 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] , Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:46:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13021/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined 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 inference cannot be drawn against it."
5. This Court has also referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 106, wherein the Apex Court held that the affidavit of self Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:46:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13021/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025 undefined serving statement made by the claimant or workman will not suffice in the matter to discharge the burden which was placed on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in given year. Mere non-production of Muster Roll per se without any plea of suppression by the workman, will not be a ground for the tribunal to draw adverse inference against the management. Considering the above ratio, in the opinion of this Court, in absence of discharging the burden by the petitioner to prove the case, no adverse inference can be drawn, more particularly, without any plea of suppression.
6. Admittedly, in view of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department, reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1, the present dispute cannot be treated as a live dispute. In that background, no error can be found in the decision of the learned Labour Court in dismissing the reference on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay..
7. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Wed Sep 24 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 24 21:46:20 IST 2025