Gujarat High Court
District Development Officer vs Arvindbhai Nathabhai Dodiyar on 15 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11075 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11073 of 2020
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11074 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & ORS.
Versus
ARVINDBHAI NATHABHAI DODIYAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MR PH PATHAK(665) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS REENA M KAMANI(6007) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 15/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since the issues raised in these petitions are similar in
nature, they are being decided by a common order. For
the purpose of adjudication, the facts of Special Criminal
Application No. 11075 of 2020 are being taken as the
lead case.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms.Reena
Kamani waives service of Rule on behalf of the
respondent.
3. The present petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award
dated 24.01.2020 passed by the learned Labour Court,
Kalol, in Reference (T) Case Nos. 241 of 2013, 242 of
2013, and 243 of 2013, which are impugned in Special
Civil Application Nos. 11073 of 2020, 11074 of 2020,
and 11075 of 2020, respectively.
4. It is the case of the present petitioner that the
respondent was engaged as a Daily Wager labourer at
the Dhamasna Seed Farm, which was initially under the
jurisdiction of the Mehsana District Panchayat and was
subsequently transferred to the Gandhinagar District
Panchayat. The work assigned to the respondent was
purely dependent upon its availability and was not of a
continuous nature. On the other hand, the respondent's
case before the learned Labour Court was that he had
been working continuously with the petitioner Seed
Farm from the year 1986 up to the date of alleged
termination, i.e., 13.07.2013. Seeking the relief of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
reinstatement, the respondent filed a reference. The
learned Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence
adduced by both parties, allowed the reference and
passed an award in favour of the respondent, directing
reinstatement with continuity of service and 30% back
wages, which is subject matter of challenge before this
Court .
5. Heard learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the
petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Reena Kamani for
the respondent.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw, appearing for the
petitioner, submitted that the nature of work assigned to
the respondent was not perennial, but purely dependent
on requirement and availability of work. It is submitted
by learned advocate Mr.Munshaw that although the
respondent has claimed to have been in service since the
year 1983, from the record it reveals that he was a
minor at the time of the alleged initial engagement,
thereby rendering the said claim implausible. It is
submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Munshaw that as
per the attendance records produced before this Court,
the respondent had worked for only 4 days in the year
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
2014-15 and for 31 days in the year 2019-20. Except for
these limited periods, there is no record of the
respondent having worked with the petitioner. Despite
this, the learned labour court, without properly
appreciating the documentary evidence and the limited
nature of the respondent's engagement, erroneously
allowed the reference in favour of the present
respondent. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to
be quashed and set aside by allowing the present
petition.
7. On the other hand, learned advocate Ms. Kamani,
appearing for the respondent, submitted that the
respondent had filed the reference challenging the
termination that took place in the year 2013. In the
statement of claim, a specific averment was made that
the respondent had been serving as a labourer since the
year 1983, which was not specifically rebutted by the
petitioner herein. It is submitted by the learned
advocate Ms.Kamani that the learned labour court, after
considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record, including the cross-examination of the witnesses,
rightly concluded that the respondent had rendered
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
continuous service and was entitled to reinstatement.
Accordingly, the learned labour court passed the award
directing reinstatement with continuity of service and
payment of 30% back wages. Therefore, it is contended
that the award is just, proper, and based on appreciation
of evidence, and does not warrant any interference.
8. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and upon
perusal of the record, it emerges that the dispute
pertains to the respondent's claim that he had been
serving as a labourer since 1983, and that his services
were terminated without following due procedure on
13.07.2013. It further transpires that, prior to filing the
present reference, the respondent had approached this
Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 13242 of
2000, seeking the benefit of Government Resolution
dated 17.10.1988. In the order dated 12.07.2013 passed
by this Court in the said petition, it was specifically
recorded that the respondents therein were appointed
between March 1994 and July 1994 and therefore, the
benefit of GR dated 17.10.1988 cannot be granted in
favour of the respondent. A copy of the said order forms
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
part of the record in the present proceedings. It emerges
from the record that the false claims are raised by the
learned reference court claiming that though they are
serving since 1983 their services were terminated
without following due procedure of law. While it is true
that the petitioner failed to contest the reference
proceedings with due diligence by not placing adequate
documentary evidence on record or by cross-examining
the respondent, it was nonetheless incumbent upon the
respondent to approach the court with clean hands and
to disclose the true and correct facts. In the absence of
such disclosure, no equitable relief can be granted. This
Court also called for the records of Special Civil
Application No. 13242 of 2000 to verify the respondent's
claim regarding the date of joining. The said records
confirm that the respondents had joined service only in
the year 1994, thereby falsifying the claim of continuous
service from 1983. The said averments are made in Civil
Application No. 6372 of 2011, which was filed seeking
directions for immediate payment of unpaid wages to
each of the petitioners therein.
8.1. In the opinion of this Court, it is of utmost necessity
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
that when the party approaches the Court, he must
place all the facts before the court without any
reservation. If there is any suppression of the material
facts on the part of the employee or if twisted facts have
been placed before the court, the court may refuse to
grant relief in favour of the person.
8.2. If one would examine the merits of the case, it
emerges that the onus was shifted on the management
without firstly determining on the basis of cogent
evidence that, the workman had worked for more than
240 days in the year preceding his termination. Neither
any documentary evidence was produced, nor any
production application was filed by the respondent to
summon the relevant records. However, the learned
court, while drawing the adverse inference has held that
in absence of any evidence on record, the claim of the
respondent is required to be accepted. 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
filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his
favour and that cannot be regarded as a sufficient
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the
conclusion that the workman had, infact worked for 240
days in a year. In the case of Municipal Corporation
Faridabad versus Siri Nivas reported in 2004 8 SCC
195 it is held that the burden was on the workman to
show that he worked for 240 days in the preceding year
prior to his retrenchment. It is further held that it would
be different where, inspite of directions by the court, the
evidence is withheld. Presumption as to adverse
inference for non production of the evidence is always
optional and one of the factor which is required to be
taken into consideration in the background of the facts
involved in the lis, the presumption thus is not obligatory
because notwithstanding the the intentional non
production other circumstances may exit, upon which
such intentional non production may be found justifiable
on some reasonable grounds. A three Judge Bench of
Supreme Court in the case of Manager Reserve Bank
of India, Bangalore Versus S.Mani and others
reported in 2005 5 SCC 100 has held that the
Tribunal's view that the burden was on the employer
was erroneous, the Bench held that initial burden of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
proof was on the workman to show that he had
completed 240 days of service. The same view was
reiterated by the Supreme Court in its decision in the
case of Batala Cooperative Sugar Mill Limited
versus Sovaran Singh reported in 2005 8 SCC 481.
The well known judgment of R.M. Yellatti vs The Asst.
Executive Engineer, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 106,
wherein, it is held that drawing of adverse inference
ultimately would depend on facts of each case, mere
affidavit or self serving statement made by the
claimant/workman will not suffice the matter of
discharge of burden placed by law on the workman to
prove that he had worked for 240 days in the given year.
It is further held that mere non production of muster roll
per-say without any plea of suppression by the claimant
workman will not be ground for the tribunal to draw
adverse inference against the management. In the case
of Ranip Nagar Palika versus Babuji Gabhaji
Thakore reported in 2007 13 SCC 343 it is held that
the burden of proof lies on the workman to show that he
worked continuously for 240 days and it is for the
workman to adduce the evidence apart from examining
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
himself to prove the factum of being employment of the
employer. The case on hand wherein the relief of
reinstatement was granted undisputably relying on the
affidavit of the workman and shifting the onus on the
employer to prove that the workman did not complete
240 days without calling for any evidence either through
oral witness or through production application. In the
considered opinion of this Court, reasons assigned by
the learned labour court is unsustainable, hence the
impugned award deserves to be set aside. However, at
the same time, parties are required to be given
opportunity to lead their evidence before the learned
labour court.
9. Resultantly these petitions are allowed. The impugned
order dated 24.01.2020 passed by the learned labour
court, Kalol, in Reference (T) Case Nos. 241 of 2013, 242
of 2013, and 243 of 2013, which are impugned in Special
Civil Application Nos. 11073 of 2020, 11074 of 2020,
and 11075 of 2020, respectively is hereby set aside. The
reference be restored to its original file and be
remanded back to the learned labour court to decide
afresh, without being influenced by the observation
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11075/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 15/07/2025
undefined
made herein.
10. All the rights and contentions shall be kept open.
11. Rule made absolute.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
