Gujarat High Court
Ashaben Lalabhai Parbat vs Deputy Executive Engineer on 18 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13021/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13021 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
ASHABEN LALABHAI PARBAT
Versus
DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
JWALIT B SONEJI(7895) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 18/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated
18.05.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court,
Bhavnagar, in Reference (LCB) No. 19 of 2019, whereby
the reference filed by the petitioner was rejected on the
ground of an unexplained delay of 15 years.
2. The case of the present petitioner is that he was
appointed on 01.01.1993 and was illegally terminated
from service on 30.04.2003. In order to challenge the
said termination and to seek the relief of reinstatement,
the petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13021/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
culminated in the filing of Reference (LCB) No. 19 of
2019. The learned Labour Court, after considering the
submissions of both parties and on observing that the
petitioner failed to adduce any evidence to establish a
violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, or to prove continuity of service, dismissed the
reference, which is subject matter of challenge before
this Court.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jwalit Soneji for the
petitioner.
3.1. Learned Advocate Mr. Soneji submits that although
the reference was filed after a delay of more than 15
years, once the petitioner had prima facie established a
case regarding the violation of Section 25(F) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the learned Labour Court
ought to have considered granting relief in the form of
lump sum compensation, rather than outrightly
dismissing the reference. Learned advocate Mr.Soneji
submits that the petitioner had filed an application
seeking production of the wage register and attendance
sheet, which was duly allowed by the Court; however,
the said order was not complied with by the employer.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13021/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
Despite this non-compliance, the learned Labour Court
failed to draw an adverse inference in favour of the
petitioner and proceeded to dismiss the reference. In
view of the above, it is submitted that the impugned
award warrants interference by this Court and,
therefore, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocate for the petitioner, it emerges from the
record that, as per the statement of claim filed at Exh.5,
the petitioner's case is that she joined service on
01.01.1993 and was terminated on 30.04.2003. The
complaint was filed on 09.10.2018 and was subsequently
referred to the learned Labour Court on 24.01.2019. It is
not in dispute that the reference was raised after an
inordinate delay of 15 years, and no cogent or
satisfactory explanation for such delay has been offered
by the petitioner. The learned Labour Court has taken
into consideration the petitioner's cross-examination,
wherein she admitted that she does not possess any
documentary evidence to establish continuity of service.
Furthermore, she failed to produce any material to
demonstrate that other employees were engaged in her
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13021/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
place or that juniors were retained at the time of her
termination. Although an application at Exh.7 was filed
seeking production of the wage register and salary slips,
this Court is of the considered view that the primary
burden to establish illegal termination lies upon the
petitioner. In this context, this Court has referred to the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State Of
Uttarakhand & Ors. Versus Smt. Sureshwati
reported in (2021) 3 SCC 108 wherein the Apex Court
held that :-
26. A Division Bench of this Court in Bhavnagar Municipal Corpn.
v. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha [Bhavnagar Municipal Corpn. v.
Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha, (2014) 16 SCC 130 : (2015) 2 SCC
(L&S) 513] held that : (SCC pp. 134-35, para 7)
"7. It is fairly well settled that for an order of termination of the
services of a workman to be held illegal on account of 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. For the respondent to succeed in that attempt
he was required to show that he was in service for 240 days in
terms of Section 25-B(2)(a)(ii). The burden to prove that he was in
actual and continuous service of the employer for the said period
lay squarely on the workman. The decisions of this Court in
Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani [Range Forest Officer v.
S.T. Hadimani, (2002) 3 SCC 25 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 367] ,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13021/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
Municipal Corpn., Faridabad v. Siri Niwas [Municipal Corpn.,
Faridabad v. Siri Niwas, (2004) 8 SCC 195 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1062]
, M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram [M.P. Electricity Board v.
Hariram, (2004) 8 SCC 246 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1092] , Rajasthan
State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan [Rajasthan
State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 8 SCC
161 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 1055] , Surendranagar District Panchayat v.
Jethabhai Pitamberbhai [Surendranagar District Panchayat v.
Jethabhai Pitamberbhai, (2005) 8 SCC 450 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 1167]
and R.M. Yellatti v. Executive Engineer [R.M. Yellatti v. Executive
Engineer, (2006) 1 SCC 106 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1] unequivocally
recognise the principle that the burden to prove that the workman
had worked for 240 days is entirely upon him. So also the
question whether an adverse inference could be drawn against the
employer in case he did not produce the best evidence available
with it, has been the subject-matter of pronouncements of this
Court in Municipal Corpn., Faridabad v. Siri Niwas [Municipal
Corpn., Faridabad v. Siri Niwas, (2004) 8 SCC 195 : 2004 SCC
(L&S) 1062] and M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram [M.P.
Electricity Board v. Hariram, (2004) 8 SCC 246 : 2004 SCC (L&S)
1092] , reiterated in RBI v. S. Mani [RBI v. S. Mani, (2005) 5 SCC
100 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 609] . This Court has held that only
because some documents have not been produced by the
management, an adverse inference cannot be drawn against it."
5. This Court has also referred the decision rendered by
the Apex Court in the case of R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant
Executive Engineer, reported in (2006) 1 SCC 106,
wherein the Apex Court held that the affidavit of self
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13021/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
serving statement made by the claimant or workman will
not suffice in the matter to discharge the burden which
was placed on the workman to prove that he had worked
for 240 days in given year. Mere non-production of
Muster Roll per se without any plea of suppression by
the workman, will not be a ground for the tribunal to
draw adverse inference against the management.
Considering the above ratio, in the opinion of this Court,
in absence of discharging the burden by the petitioner to
prove the case, no adverse inference can be drawn,
more particularly, without any plea of suppression.
6. Admittedly, in view of the decision rendered by the Apex
Court in the case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director,
Sericulture Department, reported in (2015) 15 SCC
1, the present dispute cannot be treated as a live
dispute. In that background, no error can be found in
the decision of the learned Labour Court in dismissing
the reference on the ground of inordinate and
unexplained delay..
7. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
