Gujarat High Court
Vjerambhai Dhanjibhai Jani vs Section Officer Shri Sathra Section on 9 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4630/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4630 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
VJERAMBHAI DHANJIBHAI JANI
Versus
SECTION OFFICER SHRI SATHRA SECTION & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.KRUTARTH K PANDYA(7092) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 09/04/2025
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, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB)
No.29 of 2016 dated 16.05.2024 whereby, reference
filed by the present petitioner-workman came to be
rejected.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that petitioner was
working as a Chowkidar with the respondent-Authority
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4630/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
since 01.12.1982 and his services were terminated in
violation of the provisions under section25(f), 25(g) and
25(h) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 30.04.2008.
Challenging the order of termination, the dispute was
raised before the learned reference court which was
registered being Reference (L.C.B.) No.29 of 2016. As
the petitioner was unable to remain present to file the
statement of claim, the learned reference court has
awarded the reference in absence of the present
petitioner by dismissing the reference. On 29.11.2018,
as ex-parte award was passed, therefore, application
came to be filed under Rule 26(A) of the Gujarat
Industrial Dispute Rules being Application No.32 of 2021
which was rejected by the learned labour court on
15.06.2022. Challenging the order passed in the
Miscellaneous Application, petition came to be filed
before this Court being Special Civil Application
No.14964 of 2023 wherein, this Court has quashed the
order passed rejecting the restoration application and
remitted the matter back to the learned labour court to
decide on merits. The said order was passed on
06.09.2023 after restoring the reference before the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4630/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
learned labour court.
3. The statement of claim came to be filed by the
petitioner-workman on 30.10.2023 and the respondent
has also filed the written statement on 08.01.2024. The
present petitioner has also filed the production
application demanding attendance sheet, salary sheet
and voucher from the date of appointment till the date of
termination. It is the case of the present petitioner that
though the said production application was ordered in
favour of the present petitioner, no documents were
produced. Learned labour court, after considering the
submission made by both the parties has awarded the
reference in favour of the present petitioner which is
subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Krutarth Pandya for the
petitioner.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya submits that petitioner has
worked continuously from 1982-2008 and has completed
240 days of continuous service. Learned advocate
Mr.Pandya submits that production application, though
ordered in favour of the present petitioner, no
documents were produced, however, learned reference
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4630/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
court instead of drawing adverse inference has rejected
the reference of the present petitioner. Learned
advocate Mr.Pandya submits that learned reference
court has committed error in rejecting the reference on
the ground of delay as there are catena of decisions in
which it is held that if termination is found illegal then
the relief of reinstatement can be converted by granting
the relief of lump sum compensation. Learned advocate
Mr.Pandya submits that without considering the same
the impugned order is passed, therefore, the same is
required to be interfered with and the petition is
required to be allowed.
6. Having considered the arguments placed by the learned
advocate and on referring the evidence adduced before
the learned labour court it appears that the respondent
has claimed that he was serving as a Chowkidar since
1982 and he was getting daily wages of Rs.65/- and his
last day of working was 30.04.2008. He admitted in
cross-examination that after the year 2000, the
Government has stopped the muster roll system. It
emerges from the impugned award that though the
salary was stated to have been deposited in the account
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4630/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
of petitioner, no documentary evidence was shown to
establish the case. Through the Right to Information Act,
the information was sought which was supplied by the
respondent which was produced below mark 11/2
suggesting the presence of the petitioner only in the
year 1982-83 for three days and thereafter, in none of
the year his presence has been shown. It is admitted by
the present petitioner during the cross-examination that
he did not recollect his first day of working neither is
having any documents to establish the continuity of
service. It is true that the production application was
filed by the petitioner seeking certain documents,
however, when through evidence of the present
petitioner it is established that after 1982-83 the
petitioner has not worked with the respondent-employer,
in the opinion of this Court, there is no requirement of
drawing the adverse inference in favour of the present
petitioner.
7. 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 it was for the workman to prove that he
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4630/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
had worked with the employer. If the said claim is
denied by the appellant then it was for the claimant to
lead the evidence to show that he had in fact worked for
240 days in the year preceding to his termination. Filing
of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and
that cannot be recorded as a sufficient evidence for the
Court to come to the conclusion that workman had in
fact worked for 240 days in a year and if the burden that
lies on the party is not discharged, he must fail. In that
background this Court did not find any infirmity in the
impugned judgment hence the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
8. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
