Back
2024 Supreme(MP) 372
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Hirdesh, J.
Chief Municipal Officer, Dewas v. Zaheer Kansuri
Miscellaneous Petition No. 300 of 2020 (I);
Decided on 14.8.2024*
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Prateek Patwardhan
For the Respondent: Ms. Rachana Jamindar
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -- S. 10 -- burden of proof -- initial burden to prove continuous work for 240 days not discharged by employee -- shifting of aforesaid burden on employer not justified -- case for interference made out -- impugned order set aside. (2002) 3 SCC 25 and (2005) 5 SCC 100 followed. (2015) 15 SCC 1 referred to. [Para 11
vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 && /kkjk 10 && lcwr dk Òkj && 240 fnu lrr~ dk;Z lkfcr djus d¢ vkjafÒd Òkj dk deZpkjh }kjk fuoZgu ugÈ fd;k x;k && fu;¨td ij iwo¨Zä Òkj dk varj.k U;k;¨fpr ugÈ && gLr{ksi d¢ fy, ekeyk fl) && vkf{kIr vkns'k vikLrA ¼2002½ 3 ,llhlh 25 rFkk ¼2005½ 5 ,llhlh 100 vuqlfjrA ¼2015½ 15 ,llhlh 1 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 11
ORDER
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the award dated 11.1.2019 passed in Case No.51/IDR/2017, whereby the petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent with full backwages.
2. It is stated that the petitioner has filed the present petition by assailing the order dated 11.1.2019 mainly on the ground that the private respondents have not discharged the initial burden placed upon them to prove his case that he worked for continuously for 240 days in a calendar year and in the absence of same, the trial court has shifted the burden on the petitioner to prove that private respondents had continuously worked with the petitioner for a period of more than 240 days.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of apex Court in the cases of Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 (Para 5, 8, 9, 22 to 32) and Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002) reported in 3 SCC 25 (Para 3) to submit that the initial burden lies on the workman to prove his case and the same cannot be shifted to the employer to his detriment.
4. Counsel for the respondent has supported the order impugned passed by the labour court which is just and proper and no interference is called for and prays for rejection of the petition.
5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Before dealing with the questions raised by the petitioner, it would be expedient to refer to the issues which were framed by the trial Court.
|
| okn ç'u | fu"d"kZ |
| 1- | D;k çFkei{k d¢ f}rh;i{k d¢ vèkhu lsok lekIrh dh fn-& 1-8-2015 d¢ iwoZ ,d o"kZ dh vofèk esa 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gS\ | gk¡ |
| 2- | D;k çFkei{k dh e©f[kd lsok lekIrh voSèkkfud NaVuh dh Js.kh esa vkrh gS | gk¡ |
| 3- | D;k çFkei{k d¨ f}rh;i{k }kjk dk;Z dh vko';drk d¢ vuqlkj nSfud nj ij lhfer vofèk d¢ fy, fu;¨ftr fd;k tkrk gS\ | çekf.kr ugÈ |
| 4- | D;k çFkei{k Lo;a dk;Z ls vuqifLFkr g¨ x;k Fkk\ | çekf.kr ugÈ |
| 5- | D;k çFkei{k lsok lekIrh d¢ ckn ls csj¨txkj gS v©j iqu% lsok esa LFkkfir g¨us ij fiNyk osru ikus dk vfèkdkjh gS\ | gk¡ |
| 6- | lgk;rk ,oa O;;\ | vokMZ d¢ vafre iSjk vuqlkj |
| 6- çFkei{k Jh tghj ealwjh ¼ihMCY;w&1½ us 'kiFk i= ij dFku fn, gSaA f}rh; i{k dh v¨j ls [k.Mu esa d¨Ã e©f[kd o nLrkosth lk{; çLrqr ugÈ dh x;h gSA | ||
7. The issue no.1 relates for the purpose of this petition which is sufficiently thrown light on both the questions on which the burden lies on the workman to prove his case.
8. It appears that the learned Judge of the labour Court has directed the Petitioner/Corporation to submit the documents relating to the services of petitioner but despite many opportunities the corporation has failed to produce the same. Hence it is held that adverse inference shall be drawn against the petitioner in light of the affidavit of workman that he had worked continuously for more than 240 days. In this regard, counsel for the respondent has also relied upon the decision in the case of Range Forest Officer (supra), para 3 of the same reads as under:-
“3.”...... It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead the evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 24 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 workman 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.”
9. In the case of Range Forest Officer (supra), the issue involved is similar to that of present case. In the case of Range Forest Officer, the apex Court has held that
