Gujarat High Court
Ravi Rajeshbhai Jethva vs Junagadh Municipal Corporation on 22 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8807/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8807 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
RAVI RAJESHBHAI JETHVA
Versus
JUNAGADH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DIGANT B KAKKAD(6523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NIYATI D CHAUHAN(9082) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 22/07/2025
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.41 of 2022,
dated 11.03.2025, dismissing the reference filed by the present
petitioner.
2. The gist of the case is that the petitioner was serving on the
post of Peon since 01.02.2017 and was getting monthly wages of
Rs.4,000/-. As per the allegations made in the reference, his
service was terminated on 10.01.2020, alleging a breach of
Section 25G, H & F. The dispute was raised before the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8807/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
Reference Court, which was culminated into the reference being
Reference Case No.41 of 2022. The learned Court, after
examining the evidence on record, has dismissed the reference,
which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Gohil for the petitioner and
learned advocate Ms. Chauhan for the respondent.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Gohil submits that the production
application came to be filed by the present petitioner below
Exh.9, 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
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 Hon'ble Apex Court that in the absence of
complying with the order passed under the production
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8807/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
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 advocate Ms. Chauhan,
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 20/3,
showing the salary which was credited for the months from
February, 2017 to March, 2017. 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 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.33/4 to Exh.33/7 to show that the petitioner has not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8807/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
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 Peon in the Urban Health Centre
from 01.02.2017 to 10.01.2020. In support of his claim, the bank
statement was produced below Exh.46 of Canara Bank for the
period of February, 2017 to May, 2017. In addition to the above
statement, the application below Exh.9 was filed, seeking
production from the respondent. In compliance with the order
passed in the production application, the respondent has
produced the payment advice/xerox below Exh.33/2, the details
of the wage register below Exh.33/1, the muster roll below
Exh.33/4, attendance roster below Exh.33/5 and the bank pass-
book below Exh.33/8.
6.1 On referring to the said documents, it emerges that to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8807/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2025
undefined
discharge the onus, the petitioner had produced limited
documents showing the payment of salary for the months of
February, 2017 to May, 2017, instead of producing the details of
the preceding year. Even if one would refer the same, it emerges
that during February 2017, the petitioner had worked for 15
days; in March 2017, 15 days and in May 2017, 15 days. As against
the same Exh.33/1 to 33/8 suggest 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.
7. Resultantly, the present petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
Vikramsinh Amarsinh
