SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 1260

HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
A.S. SUPEHIA, J
CHIEF OFFICER – Appellant
Versus
DINESHBHAI GOVINDBHAI HARIJAN – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19912 of 2016 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4611 of 2018 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4331 of 2018 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4754 of 2018 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4703 of 2018 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4914 of 2018 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 105 of 2017 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 106 of 2017 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 107 of 2017 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18446 of 2016 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18448 of 2016 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18450 of 2016 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19908 of 2016 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19909 of 2016 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19910 of 2016 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19911 of 2016 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20006 of 2016 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20007 of 2016 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20008 of 2016 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20009 of 2016 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16263 of 2018 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17862 of 2018 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16247 of 2018 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16248 of 2018 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16429 of 2018 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16249 of 2018 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16250 of 2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR MEHULSHARAD SHAH
For the Respondents: MR UT MISHRA

The burden lies on the workman to establish actual and continuous service for relief under the ID Act; lack of evidence leads to dismissal of claims.

Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25 - Employees’ reinstatement without back wages - Labour Court directed reinstatement of daily wagers without evidence supporting employment - Absence of proof of continuous service for 240 days prevents granting of relief - Burden of proof lies on the workman to show employment. (Paras 3, 11, 12)

(B) Burden of Proof - The court emphasized that for claims of wrongful termination, the burden lies on the workman to prove continuous service, failure to which the relief sought cannot be granted. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The respondents-employees challenged Labour Court’s award for reinstatement, asserting no evidence presented regarding their engagement or service continuity, resulting in waived rights under the ID Act, requiring proof for termination illegalities.

Findings of Court:
The Labour Court erred in not examining evidence; the case must be remanded for fresh evaluation aligned with the requisite proof under the ID Act.

Issues: Primary issues included the legal burden on employees to prove service duration and the validity of the Labour Court’s award in absence of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforced the principle that the workman must substantiate their claims of employment and continuity; without appropriate evidence, claims made before labor courts cannot succeed.

Result: Petitions allowed; Labour Court's decision remanded.

Table of Content
1. challenges against awards for reinstatement without evidence. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. burden of proof rests with workers to show termination violations. (Para 5 , 10)
3. court's observations on labour court's oversight. (Para 11 , 12)
4. remand decision for the labour court's reconsideration. (Para 14)

JUDGEMENT

1. Since the common issue and facts are involved in the present writ petitions, the same are heard and decided analogously.

2. In the captioned writ petitions, the respondents-workmen have challenged the awards passed by Labour Court, Nadiad, wherein and whereby, the petitioner-Nagarpalika is directed to reinstate the respondent-daily wagers with continuity of service without back wages.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Mehulsharad Shah appearing for the petitioner-Nagarpalika has submitted that the award of the Labour Court suffers from non-application of mind as no evidence - either documentary or oral was produced before the Labour Court and the award is passed in favour of the respondents-employees only on conjunctures and surmises.

It is submitted that the petitioner-Nagarpalika had initially passed a Resolution No.510 dated 22.10.1999 to convert the part time daily wagers to full time daily wagers, but vide order dated 16.12.1999, the Health Officer directed the Nagarpalika to postpone the implementation of the said order since there were instructions issued by the Election Commission due to election and by the order dated 21.12.1999, the Resolution was suspended. Ultimately, the Collector, while exercising the powers under Section 258 (1) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 vide order dated 08.06.2001 had suspended those resolutions. It is submitted that because of the said resolutions, the respondents-workmen raised an industrial dispute alleging that they were terminated by the Nagarpalika and the same has culminated into the references.

4. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Shah that by the order dated 21.06.2011, the reference was dismissed for want of evidence and thereafter, on an application filed by the respondents-employee, the case was restored vide order dated 17.03.2012. It is submitted that thereafter vide impugned award, the references were allowed. It is submitted that the respondents-employees did not produce any evidence before the Labour Court showing that they had actually worked for 240 days or were in fact the employees of Nagarpalika and the Labour Court without calling for necessary evidence or examining any evidence in this regard has passed the impugned award and hence, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench dated 23.07.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.2685 of 2012 and has submitted that the employer is not obliged to maintain the seniority list of daily wages and burden lies upon the party who asserts violation of provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the ID Act”). It is submitted that in the present case also it was for the respondents-employees to establish the dates of their appointment and their termination is in violation of Section 25G of the ID Act. Thus, it is submitted that since in absence of any evidence before the Labour Court, no award should have been passed directing the Nagarpalika to reinstate the respondents-employees in service.

5. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.U.T.Mishra appearing for the respondents has submitted that the Labour Court has precisely passed the award directing the Nagarpalika to reinstate the workmen in service since the Nagarpalika had passed a Resolution dated 22.10.1999, whereby it was decided to convert the part time daily wagers to full time daily wagers and hence, in view of the said resolution, the Labour Court has held that the employees were in fact working under the petitioner-Nagarpalika. It is submitted th


        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top