The burden of proof for continuous service lies with the workman, and significant delay in claiming reinstatement can render the claim invalid. Article 14 does not allow for perpetuating illegalities based on past errors.

JUDGMENT :

M.K. THAKKER, J.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Pandya waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent.

2. Since the issue raised in the these appeals are similar, they are being decided by a common judgment. The facts of Special Civil Application No.17722 of 2024 are taken for the purpose of adjudication.

3. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the judgment and award dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (T) No.58 of 2020, whereby the Labour Court directed the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent to his original post, without granting the benefits of back wages or continuity of service.

4. It is the case of the present petitioner that the Reference came to be filed by the employees seeking reinstatement in service from the date of termination, i.e., 23.05.2005, which was registered as Reference (T) No.58 of 2020. In the statement of claim filed before the learned Labour Court, it was alleged that the respondent-employees were serving as Ward Servants (Class IV) since 25.09.1994, had completed 240 days of service, and were being paid daily wages of Rs.50/-. Their services were allegedly terminated on 23.05.2005. Demand notices were issued on 23.12.2019, which went unanswered, leading to a complaint being filed before the learned Labour Commissioner, which ultimately culminated in the present References.

4.1. The petitioner appeared before the learned Labour Court and contended that the respondents had not worked continuously from 1994 to 2005 as alleged, but had only rendered services for a period of 89 days between 1994 and 1995. It was further submitted that the Reference, having been filed after an inordinate delay of 16 years, was liable to be rejected on the ground that the respondents had not completed 240 days of service in the preceding year.

4.2. The learned Labour Court, after considering the evidence adduced by both sides, partly allowed the Reference in favour of the respondents, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

5. Heard the learned AGP Ms.Dixa Pandya for the petitioner State and learned advocate Mr.Yogen Pandya for the respondent.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner:

6. Learned AGP Ms. Pandya submits that the learned Reference Court has committed an error in drawing an adverse inference against the present petitioner and in holding that the respondent had completed 240 days of service in the preceding year. She further submits that the application for production of documents, filed by the respondent, was duly replied to by the petitioner, stating that since the Reference w