Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1605
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M. K. Thakker, J.
State Of Gujarat – Petitioner
Versus
Gibalsing Babiyabhai Vasava – Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 7641 of 2025
Decided On : 26-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Dixa Pandya, AGP
The workman must prove 240 days of service for employment claims; failure of the employer to provide required records supports that proof.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Industrial Disputes Act - Section 25
(B) - Petition challenging the award of reinstatement ordered by the labour court - Respondent workman claimed termination without due process after continuous service since 2003 - Petitioner argued non-completion of required 240 days for Employee status - The labour court found the petitioner's evidence insufficient and favored the workman - Cited case law emphasized burden of proof on claimant and non-compliance by management can draw adverse inference. (Paras 2, 6)
(B) Burden of Proof - In employment disputes, workman must demonstrate 240 days of service in a year - Mere statements or affidavits without corroborative evidence insufficient; employer must produce records - High Court should not interfere with concurrent factual findings unless perverse. (Paras 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
Respondent workman, employed as a Forest Guard, claimed unlawful termination after stated continuous service from 2003 to 2012 without due process. Petitioner contested abandonment of employment and claimed non-completion of required workdays.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled in favor of the respondent, highlighting the petitioner's lack of documentary evidence and failure to comply with prior court orders.
Issues: Key questions include adequacy of proof regarding workdays and the appropriateness of the termination process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the workman sufficiently demonstrated service duration and the employer's failure to produce necessary documents warrants adverse inferences, confirming the labour court's decision.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to reinstatement order (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on the burden of proof (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. analysis of evidentiary burden and non-production (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. dismissal of petition for lack of merits (Para 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT :
M. K. Thakker, J.
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the learned labour court in Reference (L.C.B.) No.03 of 2015 dated 30.03.2022 whereby, the learned reference court has directed the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent workman to his original post with continuity of service.
2. It is the case of the present petitioner that respondent herein, had filed the reference before the learned reference court stating that the respondent joined the present petitioner on the post of Forest Guard from 05.03.2003 and he was terminated on 31.12.2012 without following due procedure under the Act. It is contended before the learned reference court by the respondent that though the respondent had served continuously and was assured by the petitioner employer that he would be regularized, but instead on regularization order of termination was passed. Present petitioner appeared before the learned labour court and raised contention that respondent had abandoned his work from May, 2007, therefore, no question for termination arises. It is further contended by the present petitioner before the learned labour court that the engagement of the present respondent was as a seasonal employee therefore, on completion of work, his services are required to be terminated. It is contended before the learned reference court that as per the muster roll which is produced for the year 2007 to 2011, the petitioner did not complete 240 days which is prime requirement under section 25(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act(hereinafter referred to as the “I.D.Act”). Learned labour court, after considering the submission made by both the parties and on scrutinizing the evidence has awarded the reference in favour of the respondent, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned AGP Ms.Dixa Pandya.
3.1. Learned AGP Ms.Pandya submits that as per the muster roll/ Tarij Patrak, which is part of the record and prepared on the basis of cash book in none of the year, the respondent has completed 240 days and he abandoned the service from May, 2007. Learned AGP Ms.Pandya submits that the onus lies on the workman to prove the requirements of 240 days, however, in absence of discharging the said onus, no relief can be granted to the workmen. Learned AGP Ms.Pandya submits that except the statement on oath, no other evidence was adduced to show that respondent has served with the petitioner establishment upto year 2011 continuously. Therefore, also impugned award deserves to be interfered with and this petition is required to be allowed.
4. Having considered the arguments advance by learned AGP Ms.Pandya and on referring the record and proceedings which has been called by this Court, it emerges that the statement of claim came to be filed by the respondent workman alleging that he was serving as a Forrest Guard from 05.03.2003 and his services were terminated on 31.12.2012. In the statement of claim, respondent has called for muster roll as well as wage register for all the period which was claimed to have been worked by the respondent. In addition to that the application below Exh.07 seeking production of document was also filed by the respondent, thereafter, further application below Exh.11 was also filed seeking same relief which was ordered in favour of the respondent and directions were issued to the present petitioner employer to produce the attendance register from 01.05.2007 to 30.04.2011. It is further ordered by the learned labour court in the said order dated 23.01.2017 that in case of non availability of the documents, first party has to file an affidavit in that regard. It is undisputed fact that neither documents which was
