Gujarat High Court
Makwana Jaswantsinh Amthusinh vs Deputy Executive Engineer on 24 July, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/889/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 889 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3400 of 2010
================================================================
MAKWANA JASWANTSINH AMTHUSINH
Versus
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ANVESH V VYAS(5654) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AKASH GUPTA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 24/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and looking to the trivial issue raised in the
present Letters Patent Appeal, the same is taken up for final
hearing today.
2. The present Letters Patent Appeal emanates from the
judgment and order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated
30.08.2024 in the captioned writ petition being Special Civil
Application No. 3400 of 2010, wherein and whereby the Learned
Single Judge has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant-
workman assailing the common award dated 29.01.2010 passed by
the Labour Court, Himmatnagar in Reference (LCH) No. 148 of
1997 and allied matters, rejecting the reference proceedings.
3. It is the case of the appellant that he was employed as
chowkidar and had rendered 11 years of service and was
terminated on 15.03.1994. The said termination culminated into
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/889/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
the aforesaid reference proceedings and ultimately the Labour
Court has held that since the appellant-workman was unable to
establish that he had completed 240 working days, preceding his
termination, his reference case was rejected. Being aggrieved, he
filed the captioned writ petition, which has also been rejected by
the Learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 30.08.2024.
Resultantly, the same has given rise to the present appeal.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Vyas appearing for the appellant has
submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge as well as the award deserves to be quashed and set
aside, as the respondent - Executive Engineer, though was called
upon to produce the documentary evidence/register to point out
the actual working days, the respondent had only produced the
affidavit dated 19.01.2009, mentioning the details of the days in
which the appellant was engaged as a daily wager. It is submitted
that the non- production of the Register Book ought to be
construed in favour of the appellant- daily wager to hold that he
has completed 240 days of service. Thus, it is urged that the award
of the Labour Court as well as the judgment and order passed by
the Learned Single Judge may be quashed and set aside.
5. We have perused the impugned award as well as the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. In the statement of demand, it
is noticed by us that the appellant has mentioned that he was
employed for five years and was terminated on 15.03.1994, since
he demanded the benefits under the Government Resolution dated
17.10.1988. It is alleged that he was terminated without issuance
of notice or notice pay or holding any departmental inquiry. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/889/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
appellant has not mentioned any date or year or month in which he
has been engaged as a daily wager. Mere casual statement has
been made that he was serving since last five years as a daily
wager and has completed 240 days and was terminated on
15.03.1994. During the reference proceedings, pursuant to the
orders passed by the Labour Court, it appears that the respondent-
Executive Engineer filed an affidavit pointing out the details of the
days in which the appellant was engaged as a daily wager. Such
details are provided from the year 1988 to 1993 and the same
would categorically show that the appellant has not worked for 240
days preceding his termination.
5.1 It is pertinent to note that there were other six references,
which were decided along with the same award passed by the
Labour Court. So far as the other references are concerned, they
were partly allowed by the Labour Court and the termination was
set aside, whereas, two reference proceedings, including the
Reference (LCH) No. 148 of 1997 of the appellant-workman has
been rejected. The Labour Court has categorically observed that
the appellant has miserably failed to prove that he had worked for
240 days preceding his termination. We have also noticed that in
fact the appellant has not cross-examined the Executive Engineer
and has not doubted the details which are produced along with the
affidavit dated 19.01.2009. It is settled legal precedent that the
initial burden lies on the workman to establish that he has worked
for 240 days preceding his termination. In order to hold the
termination of the workman as illegal for 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/889/2025 ORDER DATED: 24/07/2025
undefined
6. By considering all the relevant aspects, it is concluded by the
Labour Court that the appellant has not proved that he has worked
for 240 days preceding his termination, hence, the reference
proceedings was rejected. The Learned Single Judge, after
considering the aforesaid aspects, has held as under:
"6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also perused the
impugned award under challenge. The Labour Court has passed the
impugned award after considering the submissions and after considering
the oral as well as documentary evidence produced before it and from the
bare perusal of the findings recorded by the Labour Court there is no any
infirmity or any perversity in the findings recorded by the Labour Court. So
far as the findings recorded by the Labour Court with regard to the fact
that the petitioner has not completed 240 days in each calendar year is
concerned, it was established from the documentary evidence produced at
page 46 of the petition and which is referred hereinabove, and therefore,
under such circumstances, the Labour Court has rightly rejected the claim
of the present petitioner. It is also observed by the Labour Court in
paragraphs 16 & 17 of the impugned award and therefore, after
considering the legal settled principles and after considering the facts of
the present case, the Labour Court has rightly allowed the case of other
co-worker who was able to satisfy and prove that he had worked for 240
days in each calendar year and herein the present case, the Labour Court
has rightly rejected the claim of the present petitioner. Now it is well
settled that so far as the daily wager is concerned, if he is not regularly
appointed, in that case, provisions of Section 25-F are not required to be
followed and therefore, after considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, the Labour Court has rightly rejected the reference of the present
petitioner and there is no any infirmity or perversity in the findings
recorded by the Labour Court."
7. We do not find any infirmity or illegality either in the award
passed by the Labour Court or in the judgment passed by the
Learned Single Judge, confirming the same. Accordingly, the
present appeal stands rejected.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
Radhika/50
