Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ganpat Ram vs Principle (2025:Rj-Jd:35617) on 11 August, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:35617]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11378/2025
Ganpat Ram S/o Chotu Ram, Aged About 45 Years, Village Bhavi,
Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
Principle, Jawhar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Village Tilvasni, Jodhpur-
(Raj.) 342605
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gourav Thanvi
Mr. Bhawan Singh Ransi
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
11/08/2025
1. The present petition has been filed aggrieved of award dated
13.02.2024 (Annex.P/6) passed by the Central Administrative
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jaipur (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Tribunal)' whereby the claim petition as filed on behalf
of the claimant-workman stood dismissed.
2. Learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition
specifically observed that although it was proved that the
claimaint-workman was a daily wager employed with the
respondent Institute but he failed to prove that he had worked for
a period of 240 days in one calendar year preceding 16.10.2000
i.e. the alleged date of retrenchment.
3. Learned Tribunal further observed that the working days as
verified by the respondent Institute qua the claimant, from the
year 1994 to 1998, were not even disputed by the claimant.
Further, no document whatsoever to prove the fact of having
[2025:RJ-JD:35617] (2 of 5) [CW-11378/2025]
worked for 240 days was filed by the petitioner. Furthermore, no
application was moved on behalf of the claimant to summon the
record or the attendance register from the respondent Institute.
4. The Tribunal therefore proceeded on to hold that the
claimant is not entitled to protection of any of the provisions of
Section 25 F, G or H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1947').
5 It was also observed by the learned Tribunal that although
the alleged retrenchment was of 16.10.2000, the dispute was
raised by the claimant belatedly after a period of 14 years and the
reference was made on 11.04.2016.
6. This Court is of the clear opinion that the findings as
recorded by the learned Tribunal being totally in consonance with
law does not deserve any interference.
7. When the claimant-workman failed to prove 240 days of
work in one calendar year preceding the date of retrenchment, as
is the settled position of law, no breach of provisions of Section 25
F, G or H of the Act of 1947 is made out.
8. The Delhi Court, in its recent judgment in Ranjeet Vs. Delhi
Jal Board; 2024 SCC OnLine Del 136, while relying upon the
earlier judgments on the issue, held as under:
"36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Essen Deinki
v. Rajiv Kumar, 2003 SCC (L&S) 13 observed that the
responsibility to prove 240 days of work rests with the
employee in case there is any dispute regarding this fact.
The relevant portion of the said judgment has been
reproduced herein:
"16. The proof of working for 240 days is stated to be on
the employee in the event of any denial of such a factum
[2025:RJ-JD:35617] (3 of 5) [CW-11378/2025]
and it is on this score that this Court in Range Forest
Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, was pleased to state as below:
"In our opinion the Tribunal was 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 worked but this
claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the
claimant to lead 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 workan
had, in fact, worked for 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."
37. In the case of Kamal Center Cooperative Bank Ltd. v.
L.C. Indl. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court Rohtak. (1994) 2 LLJ
1005, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana observed that
any worker not having completed 240 days of services
doesn't have any right under the Industrial Dispute Act,
1947. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:--
"The Industrial workers who do not complete 240 days of
service have no industrial rights under the Act and cannot,
therefore, avail of the machinery provided under the Act
for the settlement of their disputes. The policy of the Act a
distinction between those with service of 240 days and
more and other with less. It was not necessary for the
management in the present case to comply with the
provisions of Section 25(H) of the Act before dispensing
with the service of the workman as be admitted less than,
240 days of service".
38. In the case of Ram Gopal Saini v. The Judge, Labour
Court No. 2 Jaipur, 2001 LLR 747, the petitioner had not
[2025:RJ-JD:35617] (4 of 5) [CW-11378/2025]
completed 240 days of work in a calendar year and
therefore the case was not in compliance with Section 25-F
of the Act. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment
is reproduced hereunder:
"The petitioner has not completed days of working in a
calendar year, Therefore compliance of Section 25-F of the
Act was not required in the instant case."
39. In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of
Rajasthan [(2004) 8 SCC 161] the position was again
reiterated in para 6 as follows:
"It was the case of the workman that he had worked for
more than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was
denied by the appellant. It was for the claimant to lead
evidence to show that he had in fact worked up to 240
days in the year preceding his termination. He has filed an
affidavit. It is only his own statement which is in his favour
and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any
court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the
claimant had worked for 240 days in a year. These aspects
were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani
[(2002) 3 SCC 25]. No proof of receipt of salary or wages
for 240 days or order or record in that regard was
produced. Mere non-production of the muster roll for a
particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court to
hold that the workman had worked for 240 days as
claimed."
40. In case titled RBI v. S. Mani, [(2005) 5 SCC 100] a
three-Judge Bench of this Court again considered the
matter and held that the initial burden of proof was on the
workman to show that he had completed 240 days of
service. The learned Labour Court's view that the burden
was on the employer was held to be erroneous.
41. Similarly, in the case of Municipal Corpn., Faridabad v.
Siri Niwas, [(2004) 8 SCC 195] it was held that the burden
was on the workman to show that he was working for more
[2025:RJ-JD:35617] (5 of 5) [CW-11378/2025]
than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his
alleged retrenchment.
42. In the instant case, despite the workman's best efforts
to portray that there has been a violation of Section 25G
and 25H of the Act, he has failed to prove that he was
engaged from 1994 to 2002 on muster roll and that he has
completed 240 days of service in a calendar year, prior to
his termination. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to bring
on record any document supporting his argument that he
worked for 240 days.
43. Accordingly, the issue framed stands decided."
9. In view of the above settled position of law, no case for
interference is made out. The writ petition is hence, dismissed.
10. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
272-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
