Gujarat High Court
Alpeshkumar Ramjibhai Vavecha vs Range Forest Officer on 13 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2843/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2843 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
ALPESHKUMAR RAMJIBHAI VAVECHA
Versus
RANGE FOREST OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.ADITYA DAVDA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 13/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, challenging the award
passed by the learned Labour Court, Junagadh, in
Reference (T) No.8 of 2019, dated 15.11.2019,
dismissing the reference filed by the present petitioner.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that petitioner was
serving as a Daily Wager from 25.09.2010 and his
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2843/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
services were terminated on 01.09.2018. He was
drawing monthly salary of Rs.7,238/- per month at the
time of termination. Alleging illegal termination,
reference came to be filed which is numbered as
Reference (T) No.8 of 2019. Learned Reference Court,
after considering the evidence, has disbelieved the case
of the present petitioner with regard to the continuous
service and dismissed the reference, which is subject
matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Gohil for the petitioner and
learned AGP Mr.Aditya Davda for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Gohil submits that the production
application came to be filed by the present petitioner
below Exh.7, seeking the production of the documents
from the respondent and in the absence of compliance
with the above order, the learned Court ought to have
drawn an adverse inference in favour of the present
petitioner. The learned advocate Mr. Gohil submits that
instead of doing the same, the learned Court has shifted
the onus on the present petitioner to prove the case and
therefore, the impugned award deserves to be interfered
with. The learned advocate Mr. Gohil submits that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2843/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
various decisions were referred to by the learned Labour
Court which were, in fact, in favour of the present
petitioner, wherein it was held by the Apex Court that in
the absence of complying with the order passed under
the production application, the adverse inference ought
to have been drawn. The learned advocate Mr. Gohil
submits that the learned Reference Court has committed
an error in holding that the present petitioner did not
establish the requirement of Section 25B by producing
cogent material on record. In that background also, the
impugned award deserves to be set aside and the
present petition is required to be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned AGP Mr.Davda, appearing
for the employer, has submitted that during the cross-
examination of the petitioner - workman, it was admitted
by him that the salary was credited in the bank account
directly. The workman has produced the bank statement
below Mark 9/3, showing the salary which was credited
for the months from August, 2011 to August, 2015. To
discharge the onus, which is on the workman to prove
his case, instead of producing the bank statement for the
whole period, the workman has only chosen to produce
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2843/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
the statement for limited months. As against the same,
in compliance with the order passed under the
production application, the respondent has produced the
evidence below Exh.11/1 to Exh.11/2 to show that the
petitioner has not completed 240 days in the preceding
year. On considering the same, the learned Court has
dismissed the reference. Therefore, it was prayed not to
interfere in the impugned award and to dismiss the
present petition.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and on
referring to the evidence, which is part of the record of
the learned Reference Court, it emerges that the claim
was raised by the present petitioner that he served as a
Daily Wager in the Wireless Station from 25.09.2010 to
01.09.2018. In support of his claim, the bank statement
was produced below Mark 9/3 of Canara Bank for the
period of February, 2017 to May, 2017. In addition to
the above statement, the application below Exh.7 was
filed, seeking production from the respondent. In
compliance with the order passed in the production
application, the respondent has produced the payment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2843/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
advice/xerox below Mark 11/1 as well as the details of
the wage register below Mark 11/2.
6.1. On referring to the said documents, it emerges that to
discharge the onus, the petitioner had produced limited
documents showing the payment of salary for the
months of August, 2011 to August, 2015, instead of
producing the details of the preceding year. Even if one
would refer the same, it emerges that during 2012, the
petitioner had worked for 229 days; in 2013 for 191
days; in 2014 for 154 days and in 2015 for 52 days. As
against the same, Mark 11/1 and 11/2 suggests that
petitioner had not completed 240 days of service in a
preceding year of his termination.
6.2. Consideration overall the evidence, it emerges that no
contemporaneous record was produced to suggest that
the petitioner has completed 240 days in the preceding
year. The learned Court, after referring to the evidence
which is part of the record and after assigning cogent
and sufficient reasons, has dismissed the reference. In
the considered opinion of this Court, no error has been
committed by the learned Labour Court, hence, the
present petition deserves to be dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2843/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
7. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed.
8. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
