ORDER :

R.M.CHHAYA, J.

1. Heard Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned AGP for the applicants.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and order passed in Special Civil Application no. 14096/18 and allied Writ Petitions, the present appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment rendered in Special Civil Application no.8815/19.

3. Writ Petition being Special Civil Application no. 8815/19 was filed by the appellants against the judgment and award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Godhra in Reference (T) no.47/02 mainly on the ground that the workman did not work for more than 240 days at any point of time. It was also the case of the appellants that there was no violation of Section 25F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The learned Single Judge examined the contentions raised by the appellants and relying upon the catena of decisions including the decision of the Full Bench has come to the conclusion that the appellant is an industry as defined under the Act and has dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that there is breach of Sections 25F, G and H and being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed only in one Writ Petition. Upon inquiry the learned AGP informed this Court that in other matters, the appellant–State has not preferred any Letters Patent Appeal.

4. Ms. Dhwani Tripathi, learned AGP has contended that the common judgment and order passed in other Writ Petitions is distinguishable on facts as far as facts of Special Civil Application no. 8825/19 is concerned. According to Ms. Tripathi, at no point of time, the respondent – workman had worked for 240 days. It was reiterated as contended before the learned Single Judge by Ms. Tripathi that the said aspect has been overlooked by the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge. On the said singular ground it was contended that the Letters Patent Appeal being meritless deserves to be entertained and allowed.

5. We have perused the observations made by the learned Single Judge and also the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition as well as the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. The learned Single Judge has averred thus:-

“12. This brings this Court to the Second issue of the respondent not having proved the completion of 240 days in a particular year. According to the petitioner, this ought to have been regarded by the Labour Court at the time of deciding the reference. This Court notices that the respondent has stepped into the witness box. He had shown his inability to produce appointment letter, Identification Card and Pay Slip. He also was unable to produce any other vindicating document in support of the statement of claim. According to him, he has never been issued any of these documents. Also admitting in the cross examination that none of these documents had been given, and therefore, it was not feasible for the respondent to prove 240 days of employment, as requirement. The Court therefore held that this onus would shift to the present petitioner which was opponent before the Labour Court.

13. In some of the references, by way of documentary evidence, muster roll has been produced but, it was not a continuous muster roll, the truncated version of the same was shown to the Court. This being a vital document, the Court was quite dissatisfied and unhappy as to why such vital documents were not produced, despite a specific direction. It is well laid down law on such aspect in the case of R.M.Yellatti (supra) against the employer for non-production of muster roll and other vital documentary evidence and without any discharge of burden of proof an attempt is made by the workman and he has not been able to produce the documentary evidence, even after issuance of the notice and calling upon the employer.

14. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Zonal Manager, State Bank of India vs. Modi Rajeshkumar Shantilal,