Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lok Swastha Yanatriki Vibhag Ujjain vs Ankur Chouhan on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27509
1 MP-3200-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK AWASTHI
MISC. PETITION No. 3200 of 2019
LOK SWASTHA YANATRIKI VIBHAG UJJAIN AND OTHERS
Versus
ANKUR CHOUHAN
Appearance:
Shri Piyush Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Mahesh Kumar Choudhary, Advocate for the respondent.
Heard on : 10.09.2025
Pronounced on : 26.09.2025
ORDER
This miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India is preferred, being aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.2019 (Annexure-
P/3) passed in Case No.85/2017/IDR by the Labour Court, Ujjain, whereby
respondent has been ordered to be reinstated within one month.
2. Facts in brief are that petitioners - Lok Swastha Yanatriki Vibhag
is a department under Government of M. P. and with effect from 1996, all its
works have been merged into Nagar Palika Nigam, Ujjain, which is a local
self-body of the Government of M.P. associated with implementation of
drinking water supply schemes to the citizens of the city. The respondent was
appointed as daily wager in the petitioners' department vide oral order dated
09.11.2011 and he worked therein from 09.11.2011 to 29.12.2013 and his
services were terminated vide oral order dated 29.12.2013. Aggrieved by the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27509
2 MP-3200-2019
oral order of termination, on 23.12.2016, the respondent raised a dispute
before the Conciliation Officer at Ujjain but the same has not been referred
to the Labour Court, Ujjain and therefore, the respondent directly raised a
dispute before the Labour Court after invoking the provisions of Section
2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as per award of the Labour
Court, the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service.
3. Challenging the impugned award, this petition is preferred on the
ground that respondent was daily wager and was appointed for temporary
services and he failed to show that his entry into service was lawful and that
he worked for 240 days in a calendar year preceding his alleged termination.
The termination order of respondent was not bad in law as the nature of post
of respondent was daily wager and he was not regularized in the services
hence he was terminated by the petitioners. The petition has been
assailed mainly on the ground that the respondent has not discharged the
initial burden placed upon him to prove his case that he worked continuously
for 240 days in a calendar year and in the absence of same, the Trial Court
has shifted the burden on the petitioners to prove that respondent had
continuously worked with the petitioners for a period of more than 240 days.
4. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order passed by
the Labour Court is arbitrary and is in contravention of the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, as the same is solely based on an adverse
interference against the petitioners. The Trial Court has wrongly shifted the
burden of proof on the shoulders of the petitioners in proving that the
employee had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27509
3 MP-3200-2019
termination whereas, the onus was clearly on the employee to show and
prove this fact. The petitioners' department is not an industry and the
respondent is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(S) of the Act.
It is argued that there was no appointment order and he did not continue in
the service. The person claiming the benefit of Section 25(F) of the Act has
to establish that he is in the service of the employer having being appointed
validly. The Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that the respondent has
not completed 240 days of service in preceding 12 months before alleged
termination of service and the respondent also failed to produce any record of
the same. The termination of daily wager does not attract Section 25(F) of
the Act and is neither retrenchment nor any arbitrary action by the
petitioners. To buttress his contentions, counsel has relied upon the decisions
in the case of Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani [AIR 2002 SC 1147],
Nagar Palika Nigam, Ujjain Vs. Rajpalsingh [W.P. No.3645/2017 dated
19.07.2018], Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Jabalpur & Anr. [ILR (2018) MP 401], Indore Nagar Palika Nigam,
Indore Vs. Mukesh [W.P. No.3263/2014 dated 08.05.2016], Nagar Palika
Nigam Vs. Banshi [M.P. No.69/2017 dated 23.03.2018] and Chief Municipal
Officer, Dewas Vs. Zaheer Kansuri [M. P. No.300/2020 dated 14.08.2024] to
submit that the initial burden lies on the workman to prove his case and the
same cannot be shifted to the employer to his detriment. It is further
submitted that in the light of provisions of Section 101 and 102 of the
Evidence Act, the burden to prove misrepresentation was on the respondent
which has not been discharged by the respondent.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27509
4 MP-3200-2019
5. Counsel for the respondent has supported the order impugned
passed by the Labour Court which is just and proper. Hence, no interference
is called for and prays for rejection of the petition.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. In identical facts and circumstances, this Court in the case of Indore
Nagar Palika Nigam Vs. Mukesh (W.P. No.3263/2014) has set aside the
order of Labour Court on the ground that the burden is on the workman to
prove that he worked for 240 days in one calendar year and the said burden
cannot be shifted over the employer. The respondent in support of his claim
has not filed any document or any oral evidence. In cross-examination, he
has specifically admitted that he is not having any documentary proof in
respect of his employment. He has also not examined any co-worker in
support of his claim. He has not filed even the appointment order.
8. In the case of Range Forest Officer (supra), it has been held that
"the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the management without
first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had
worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was
the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by
the appellant. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this
claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead the
evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year
preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in
his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court or
Tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact worked for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27509
5 MP-3200-2019
240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or
order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced
by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set-aside."
9. It would be expedient to refer that the issue to prove the burden lies
on the workman to prove his case. It appears that the Labour Court has
directed the petitioners to submit the documents relating to the services of
respondent but despite many opportunities, the petitioners has failed to
produce the same. Hence it is held that adverse inference shall be drawn
against the petitioners in light of the fact that workman had worked
continuously for more than 240 days.
10. Before proceeding further, this Court would like to consider the
provisions of Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which
reads as under :-
"101. Burden of proof.--Whoever desires any Court to give
judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the
existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts
exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it
is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
102. On whom burden of proof lies.--The burden of proof in a
suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if
no evidence at all were given on either side."
11. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is unable to endorse the views
expressed by the Labour Court in shifting the burden of proof on the
petitioners. Reference may also be made to the decision rendered in the case
of RBI Vs. S. Mani [(2005) 5 SCC 100 ], in which the Apex Court has dealt
with the issue of burden of proof in the following manner:-
"Burden of proof.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27509
6 MP-3200-2019
28. The initial burden of proof was on the workmen to show that
they had completed 240 days of service. The Tribunal did
not consider the question from that angle. It held that the burden of
proof was upon the Appellant on the premise that they have failed
to prove their plea of abandonment of service stating:
"It is admitted case of the parties that all the 1st parties under the
references CR No. 1/92 to 11/92 have been appointed by the 2nd
party as ticca mazdoors. As per the 1st parties, they had worked
continuously from April, 1980 to December, 1982. But the 2nd
party had denied the above said claim of continuous service of the
1st parties on the ground that the 1st parties has not been
appointed as regular workmen but they were working only as
temporary part time workers as ticca mazdoor and their services
were required whenever necessary arose that too on the leave
vacancies of regular employees. But as strongly contended by the
counsel for the 1st party, since the 2nd party had denied the above
said claim of continuous period of service, it is for the 2nd party to
prove through the records available with them as the relevant
records could be available only with the 2nd party."
29. The Tribunal, therefore, accepted that the Appellant had
denied the Respondents' claim as regard their continuous service.
31. In Siri Niwas (supra), this Court held: (SCC pp.197-98, para
13).
"13. "The provisions of the Indian Evidence Act per se are not
applicable in an industrial adjudication. The general principles of
it are, however applicable. It is also imperative for the Industrial
Tribunal to see that the principles of natural justice are complied
with. The burden of proof was on the respondent herein to show
that he had worked for 240 days in preceding twelve months prior
to his alleged retrenchment. In terms of Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, an order retrenching a workman
would not be effective unless the conditions precedent therefor are
satisfied. Section 25-F postulates the following conditions to be
fulfilled by employer for effecting a valid retrenchment :
(i) one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for
retrenchment or wages in lieu thereof;
(ii) payment of compensation equivalent to fifteen days, average
pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part
thereof in excess of six months." It was further observed: (SCC
P.198, Para 14)
"14. As noticed herein before, the burden of proof was on the
workman. From the Award it does not appear that the workman
adduced any evidence whatsoever in support of his contention that
he complied with the requirements of Section 25B of the Industrial
Disputes Act. Apart from examining himself in support of his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27509
7 MP-3200-2019
contention he did not produce or call for any document from the
office of the Appellant herein including the muster rolls. It is
improbable that a person working in a Local Authority would not
be in possession of any documentary evidence to support his claim
before the Tribunal. Apart from muster rolls he could have shown
the terms and conditions of his offer of appointment and the
remuneration received by him for working during
the aforementioned period. He even did not examine any other
witness in support of his case."
32. Yet again in Hariram (supra), it was opined: (SCC P:250, Para
10)
"10.....We cannot but bear in mind the fact that the initial burden
of establishing the factum of their continuous work for 240 days in
a year rests with the respondent applicants."
12. The workman except for making a bald statement that he was
employed with the employer has not produced any evidence to establish that
he was employed for 240 days or for more than 240 days with the petitioners'
department. There was categoric denial by the employer before the Labour
Court, however, the Labour Court based upon the statement of the workman
has directed the reinstatement of the workman. As no proof of receipt of
salary or wages nor any record of appointment or engagement was produced
by the workman and therefore, in light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Labour Court has wrongly awarded
compensation to the workman in question.
13. This Court has carefully gone through the award passed by the
Labour Court. Not a single document was produced by the workman to
establish that he was appointed at any point of time with the present
petitioners. No document was produced reflecting that he has served the
department from 09.11.2011 to 29.12.2013 and there was a categoric denial
on the part of the employer in respect of engagement of the workman. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:27509
8 MP-3200-2019
aforesaid judgments makes it very clear that the burden of proof is on the
claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given calendar year
and the burden is discharged only upon the workman for adducing cogent
evidence, both oral and documentary and in the present case the Labour
Court has erred in law and facts in passing an award of reinstatement to the
workman in question.
14. In light of the aforesaid discussions and also after going through
the record of the Labour Court, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial
Court has wrongly shifted the burden of proof on the petitioners instead of
the respondent. So the petitioners has been able to make out a case for
interference in the order passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain and as a
consequence, the impugned order dated 13.03.2019 deserves to be set aside,
and is accordingly set aside.
15. Resultantly, the present petition stands allowed and is disposed of.
(ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE
gp
