Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Veni Madhav vs The Executive Engineer (City) O And M ... on 3 September, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:39067]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12250/2025

Veni Madhav S/o Shri Ratan Lal Madhav, Aged About 51 Years,
Resident Of Kankaria Chowk, Ward No. 14, Tehsil- Nokha,
District- Bikaner (Rajasthan).
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       The Executive Engineer (City) O And M, Jodhpur Vidyut
         Vitaran Nigam Limited, Raisar Road, Nokha, District-
         Bikaner.
2.       Assistant Engineer (City) O Ana M, Jodhpur Vidhyut
         Vitaran Nigam Limited, Nokha, Bikaner.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. D.D. Chitlangi



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

03/09/2025

1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of award

dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure-4) passed by the learned Industrial

Disputes Tribunal cum Labour Court, Bikaner in Labour Case

No.21/2015 (CIS No.20/2015).

2. Learned Labour Court while deciding the claim petition as

preferred by the petitioner-claimant recorded a specific finding to

the effect that the petitioner-claimant failed to prove that he

completed 240 days of service in one calendar year preceding his

alleged date of retrenchment i.e. 31.08.2012.

3. After perusing the documents as placed on record, this Court

is in consonance with the finding as recorded by the learned

[2025:RJ-JD:39067] (2 of 5) [CW-12250/2025]

Labour Court. The pleadings as made by the claimant in his

statement of claim were as under:

"10- ;g gS fd deZpkjh dh mifLFkfr izFke fu;qfDr fnukad 12-3-97 ls ekg Qjojh 2006 rd eLVªksy ij yxkrs Fks eLVªksy ds vk/kkj ij gh U;wure etnwjh dk Hkqxrku djus Fks fdUrq ekg ekpZ 2006 ls deZpkjh dh lsok "krksZ esa cnyko dj osru dk Hkqxrku Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls djok;k tkus yxk fdUrq deZpkjh ds dk;Z iz--fr esa fdlh izdkj dk cnyko ugha fd;k x;kA fu;qfDr ls lsok lekfIr rd lgk;d vfHk;Urk ds fu;U=.k esa gh ok;jeSu in ij yxkrkj dk;Z fd;k gSA deZpkjh dks le;≤ ij dk;Z vuqHko izek.k i= Hkh fn;s x;s gSA

11- ;g gS fd deZpkjh dh Hkfo'; fuf/k jkf"k dh dVkSrh Hkh osru esa ls dh tkrh Fkh fdUrq deZpkjh dks Hkfo'; fuf/k dksM uEcj ugha crk;k x;kA 12- ;g gS fd deZpkjh dh lsok vpkud fcuk fdlh dkj.k ,oa vk/kkj ds lekIr dj fn;s tkus ls deZpkjh o deZpkjh dk ifjokj ?kksj vkfFkZd o ekufld ladV esa Qal x;k gSA deZpkjh lsok lekfIr frfFk ls csjkstxkj gSA"

4. A bare perusal of the above pleadings reflect that it was not

even the case of the claimant that he worked till the year 2012.

Further, not a whisper has been made as to for how many days he

worked during the year 2011-12 or before the date of his alleged

retrenchment i.e. 31.08.2012. Even, no document, whatsoever,

has been placed on record to substantiate the said fact.

5. 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.

6. 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred

to as 'the Act of 1947') is made out.

[2025:RJ-JD:39067] (3 of 5) [CW-12250/2025]

7. 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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:39067] (4 of 5) [CW-12250/2025]

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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:39067] (5 of 5) [CW-12250/2025]

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 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."

8. In view of the above settled position of law, no case for

interference is made out. The writ petition is hence, dismissed.

9. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand

disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 201-KashishS/-