Gujarat High Court
Jivuben Karsanbhai Parmar vs District Panchayat, Surendranagar on 11 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17964/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17964 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
JIVUBEN KARSANBHAI PARMAR
Versus
DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, SURENDRANAGAR & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NILESH M SHAH(780) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 11/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate
Mr.H.S.Munshaw waives service of Rule on behalf of the
respondent No.1 and 2.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India challenging the award passed by
the learned labour court in Reference (L.C.S.) No.18 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17964/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
1996 dated 01.07.2021 whereby, the reference filed by
the present petitioner came to be dismissed.
3. "It is the case of the present petitioner that he was
appointed as a daily wager with Respondent No. 1 on
01.11.1988 and worked continuously for more than 240
days in each year. As alleged, his services were orally
terminated on 13.11.1992 without following the
procedure prescribed under the Act. Challenging the
termination, a dispute was raised before the learned
Labour Court, which culminated in a reference. Initially,
the learned Labour Court allowed the reference in
favour of the present petitioner by granting the relief of
reinstatement with 20% back wages vide order dated
30.11.1995. However, a restoration application was filed
under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat)
Rules, 1966, which was rejected by the learned Labour
Court. That rejection was challenged before this Court
by filing a writ petition, being Special Civil Application
No. 10264 of 2007, which was allowed and the ex-parte
award passed by the learned labour court came to be set
aside and the reference was remanded back to the
learned labour court. Thereafter, the learned reference
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17964/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
Court reconsidered the matter afresh and passed an
award dismissing the reference, which is now under
challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nilesh.M.Shah for the
petitioner and learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for
the respondent.
5. Learned advocate Mr.Shah submits that the only ground
on which the reference came to be rejected was that the
petitioner did not complete 240 days in preceding year.
Learned advocate Mr.Shah submits that, in the
additional statement of claim, it was specifically averred
by the petitioner that the attendance card, wage slips,
and identity card were not provided to him. Therefore, in
the absence of these documents, the petitioner was
unable to produce them to establish his case. Learned
advocate Mr.Shah submits that, although it was
contended before the learned Labour Court that the
petitioner had worked at Dhrangadhra Methan Road, the
learned reference Court relied upon the muster roll
produced by the respondent, which pertained to a
different work site and did not include the petitioner's
name. Learned advocate Mr.Shah submits that instead
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17964/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
of calling for the muster roll from the location where the
petitioner actually worked, the learned reference Court
relied solely on the documents already on record.
Learned advocate Mr.Shah submits the respondent
withheld the best evidence by not producing the relevant
muster roll and, rather than drawing an adverse
inference against the respondent for such non-
production, the learned reference Court proceeded to
dismiss the reference. Hence, learned advocate Mr.Shah
submits that the impugned award requires interference
and the present petition deserves to be allowed.
6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw
submits that, indisputably, the muster roll produced
below Exh.41 for the period from 1988 to 1992 does not
reflect the petitioner's name, indicating that he did not
carry out any work during that time. Learned advocate
Mr.Munshaw submits that no applicarefutetion for
production was filed by the petitioner, nor was any
evidence adduced to substantiate his claim. Although the
burden was on the petitioner to prove his case, he failed
to discharge it. Therefore, the learned reference Court
has rightly dismissed the reference, and no interference
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17964/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
is required. Consequently, the petition is liable to be
dismissed.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and the
evidence placed on record, it emerges that, as per the
averments made in the statement of claim as well as in
the additional statement of claim, the petitioner
contended that he had worked at various locations
within Dhrangadhra Taluka and that, at the time of his
termination on 13.11.1992, he was posted at Methan
Road. It is not in dispute that the petitioner did not
adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary, in
support of his claim. On the other hand, the respondent,
in order to refute the petitioner's claim, produced the
muster roll at Exhibit 41 for the period from 21.02.1988
to 31.07.1992, indicating that the petitioner had not
worked at any of the locations listed therein during the
said period. Upon perusal of the said document, it is
revealed that the muster roll pertains to 40 different
work sites where various employees were engaged.
Although Methan Road is not one of the sites listed, it is
pertinent to note that the petitioner's case was not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17964/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
limited to Methan Road alone. In his additional
statement of claim, the petitioner himself stated that he
worked at various places in Dhrangadhra Taluka, with
Methan Road being the location of his last posting prior
to termination. However, the petitioner's name does not
appear in the muster roll for any of the 40 listed
locations. From the muster roll the name of the present
petitioner does not reflect at any places out of the said
40 place. Additionally, the petitioner has failed to
produce any evidence, either during cross-examination
or by way of documents, to prove that he had completed
240 days of continuous service in the relevant year. In
view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the learned reference Court has rightly relied on
the documentary evidence produced at Exh.41 while
dismissing the reference
8. This Court has referred to the decision rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of Range Forest Officer v. S.T.
Hadimani, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 25, wherein it
was held that the duty is cast upon the petitioner to
prove his case, and in the absence of such proof, no
relief can be granted in his favour.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17964/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/07/2025
undefined
9. In the above background, the petition does not require
any interference.
10. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
11. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
court.
12. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
