Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Gujarat High Court

Dhoraji Municipality vs Bhaveshkumar A Jagani & on 7 January, 2014

Author: N.V.Anjaria

Bench: N.V.Anjaria

         C/SCA/18789/2013                                 ORDER



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18789 of 2013
================================================================
                DHORAJI MUNICIPALITY....Petitioner(s)
                            Versus
            BHAVESHKUMAR A JAGANI & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL R JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
================================================================
        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
                     Date : 07/01/2014
                            ORAL ORDER

The   petitioner­Municipality   has   called   in  question,   by   filing   the   present   writ   petition,   the  judgment   and   award   dated   Nil/02/2013   passed   by   the  Labour   Court,   Rajkot   in   Reference   (LCR)   No.   10   of  2005, whereby the Labour Court directed reinstatement  of the respondent­workman with continuity of service  but   without   backwages.   It   was   forwarded   to   the  petitioner­Municipality on 19th February, 2013. 

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi for the  petitioner.

3. The respondent­workman was employed as Valve­man  in the Water Works Department of the Municipality and  was   working   since   last   six   years.   He   invoked   the  jurisdiction   of   the   Labour   Court   seeking   reference  against his termination of service effected on     1 st  November,2004.   It   was   his   case   in   the   statement   of  claim   at   Exh.3   that   without   any   notice   and   without  Page 1 of 8 C/SCA/18789/2013 ORDER complying   with   the   provisions   of   the   Industrial  Disputes Act,1947, his services came to be terminated  by   oral   order.   It   was   his   case   that   he   had   put   in  continuous service of 300 days during every year, he  worked.   According  to  the   workman,   he   was   in   service  since last six years and was getting pay of Rs.72.90ps  per day. As against that, the case of the employer was  that the workman was employed on the basis of need of  the work and he had not completed continuous service.

3.1 Before the Labour Court, the workman deposed at  Exh.34.   He   was   cross­examined   by   the   otherside.   At  Exh.36, the workman declared his evidence to be over.  No  evidence  thereafter   was  led   by   the   otherside  and  the right of otherside to lead evidence was thereafter  closed.   In   his   evidence,  the   workman  asserted  his  case. He stated that he had put in continuous service.  He stated that he was getting pay of Rs.72.90ps per  day. He further stated that the employer did not issue  to him any identity card, nor any pay slip, presence  card or leave register was given. It was stated that  all   those   documents   relating   to   his  service   were   in  the   custody   of   the   employer.   The   workman   filed   an  application   at   Exh.18   calling   upon   the   employer   to  produce the statement of salary, statement regarding  set   up   on   the   post,   seniority   list   of   valve­man   as  well as seniority list of other rojamdars etc. Despite  the   said  notice   of   production,   the   employer   did  not  produce any document. The Labour Court had passed an  order on application Exh.18, directing the employer­ Municipality   to   produce   the   necessary   documents. 

Page 2 of 8 C/SCA/18789/2013 ORDER

Despite that order, no documents came to be produced  by the Municipality.

4. The   Labour   Court   recorded   that   in   the   cross­ examination of the workman also, the employer failed  to controvert the case putforth by the workman. Having  regard to that and further in view of failure of the  Municipality to produce the documents and the details  of service of the workman, despite being called upon  and   despite   being   ordered   by   the   Labour   Court,   an  adverse inference was drawn. The Labour Court accepted  the evidence of the workman. It was never rebutted, as  stated   above.   It   was   consequentially   held   that   the  termination   of   the   workman   was   bad   in   law   being   in  violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes  Act, 1947, more particularly in breach of section 25F  of the Act.

5. As   noted   above,   it   clearly   emerged   that   the  workman   was  daily  rated  workman,  who   had   worked  for  six years. He was not given any document relating to  his appointment and service by the employer, because  of   which,   he   was   not   in   a   position   to   provide   any  evidence   about   his   service   status   and   the   service  details. Before the Labour Court, in his evidence, he  asserted   the   fact   which   he   had   pleaded   in   the  statement   of   claim.   The   employer   failed   to   dislodge  the evidence of the workman in course of the cross­ examination.   The   workman   filed   also   an   application  Exh.18, giving notice to the employer to produce the  relevant   documents   regarding   his   service,   but   the  Page 3 of 8 C/SCA/18789/2013 ORDER employer did not produce any such document. No reason  was   furnished   by   the  employer  for   not   producing  the  said documents which were in its custody. 

6. It is true that ordinarily, the burden to prove  the continuous services lies on the workman. However,  this may not be straitjacket preposition in all cases,  more particularly in cases of daily rated workmen who  are   employed   without   issuing   appointment   order   or  without   giving   any   documentation   regarding   their  engagement in service. In a petition, at the instance  of the workman, this Court in Imtiaz Abbasbhai Shaikh  and   Ors.   vs.   Weather   Craft   Ltd.   &   Ors.   [2011(3)  G.L.H. 157],  inter alia, observed that   normally, in  the   matters   of   employer­employee   relationship,  documentary evidence remains in exclusive control of  the employer and many a times, employer, acting more  smart   than   normal,   do   not   allow   any   documentary  evidence to come into existence. On the facts of the  said case also, the workman was not given any document  which could be produced by him to establish his case.  When   the   documentary   evidence   relating   to   service  record of the workman remains in the custody of the  employer  and   the   employer   withholds  the   same,   it   is  possible to draw an adverse inference in appropriate  cases.

6.1. This   Court   in  Executive   Engineer   &   Ors.   vs.  Shantuben   Chhaganbhai   Makwana   [2007   Lab   IC   3661],  observed and held as under:­ Page 4 of 8 C/SCA/18789/2013 ORDER "10. Law on this subject has recently been examined by  the Apex Court and decided that in such circumstances  when  the  workman  is not  having  any  evidence  to  prove  completion   of   240   days   continuous   service   within   one  year, then, in such circumstances, employer shall have  to   produce   documentary   evidence   which   are   in  possession of the employer and if the evidence of the  workman has not been challenged in cross examining the  workman   concerned,   then   labour   court   has   right   to  believe   the   oral   evidence   of   workman.   In   RM   Yellatti  versus   Asstt.   Executive   Engineer,   reported   in   2005  (9)SCALE 139 = 2006 (1) SCC 106, this aspect has been  examined   by   the   apex   court.   It   has   been   observed   by  the apex court in paras 17, 18 and 19 as under:

"17.   Analyzing   the   above   decisions   of   this   Court,   it  is   clear   that   the   provisions   of   the   Evidence   Act   in  terms do not apply to the proceedings under section 10  of   the   Industrial   Disputes   Act.   However,   applying  general   principles   and   on   reading   the   aforestated  judgments,   we   find   that   this   court   has   repeatedly  taken   the   view   that   the   burden   of   proof   is   on   the  claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a  given   year.   This   burden   is   discharged   only   upon   the  workmen   stepping   in   the   witness   box.   This   burden   is  discharged  upon  the  workman  adducing   cogent  evidence,  both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of  services   of   daily   waged   earner,   there   will   be   no  letter  of appointment  or termination.  There  will also  be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases,  the workman (claimant) can only call upon the employer  to   produce   before   the   Court   the   nominal   muster   roll  for   the   given   period,   the   letter   of   appointment   or  termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance  ultimately   would   depend   thereafter   on   facts   of   each  case.   The   above   decisions   however   make   it   clear   that  mere affidavits or self serving statements made by the  claimant/workman   will   not   suffice   in   the   matter   of  discharge  of   the   burden  placed  by  law  on   the   workman  to   prove   that   he   had   worked   for   240   days   in   a   given  year.   The   above   judgments   further   lay   down   that   mere  non production of muster rolls per se without any plea  of suppression by the claimant workmen will not be the  ground   for   the   tribunal   to   draw   an   adverse   inference  against   the   management.   Lastly,   the   above   judgments  lay down basic principle, namely, that the High Court  under Art. 226 of the Constitution will not interfere  with   the   concurrent   findings   of   fact   recorded   by   the  labour   court   unless   they   are   perverse.   This   exercise  will depend upon facts of each case."

Page 5 of 8 C/SCA/18789/2013 ORDER

6.2 The   position   of   law   has   been   accepted   by   this  Court in common oral order dated 04.08.2011 in Deputy  Executive   Engineer   vs.   Hakubha   Narubha   Zala,   being  Special Civil Application No.7409 of 2011 and allied  matters.   A   decision   in  Bilimora   Nagarpalika   vs.  Jashuben   Jashvantbhai   Solanki   [2013(1)   GLR   845],  reiterates   the   principle.   Similarly   in  State   of  Gujarat   and   Ors.   vs.   Amarsinh   Ranchhodbhai   Parmar  [2008(3)   GLH   711],   a   Division   Bench   of   this   Court  dealt with the case which is relevant to the facts of  the present case, wherein the workmen applied for and  obtained   order   of   production   of   documents   from   the  employer   which   was   the   Forest   Department.   The  department did not comply with the order and on the  basis of the evidence of the workman, the Labour Court  found   that   the   continuous   service   was   proved   and  section   25F   was   violated.   The   Court   observed   in  paragraph­2 of this judgment as under:­ "The   appellant   herein   took   up   the   defence   that   the  workmen   concerned   had   not   completed   240   days   of  continuous service in any year and that they had left  the   service   on   their   own;   but   did   not   lead   any  evidence   whatsoever.   Three   workmen,   respondents  herein,   were   examined   and   cross­examined   in   evidence  and   had   also   applied   for   and   obtained   an   order   for  production   of   documents   by   the   appellant,   The  appellant did not comply with the order to produce the  documentary   evidence   and,   in   absence   of   any   evidence  in   defence,   the   Labour   Court   found   that   continuous  service was proved and mandatory provisions of section  25­F   of   the   Industrial   Disputes   Act,   1947   were   not  complied   in   terminating   the   services   and   ordered  reinstatement with 15% back wages...(Para 2)."

7. Turning   to   the   facts   of   the   present   case,   the  workman had claimed that he worked for six years which  was not in dispute. The Labour Court recorded that the  Page 6 of 8 C/SCA/18789/2013 ORDER first party employer did not put any question in the  cross­examination   of   the   workman   to   demolish   the  workman's evidence. The first party employer therefore  could   not   controvert   or   rebut   the   evidence   of   the  workman. Furthermore, the workman had filed production  application   Exh.18,   calling   upon   the   petitioner­ employer to produce the relevant documents regarding  his   service.   The   employer   failed   to   produce   the  documents   which   were   in   its   custody,   despite   the  notice given by the workman. 

8. In the circumstances, in the eye of law, it would  have to be treated that the workman had discharged his  burden   and   the  burden   to   prove   otherwise   would   then  shift onto the employer. In the facts of the case, the  employer   failed   to   discharge   this   burden   which  required   to   be   discharged   in   law   by   him.   In   the  circumstances,   the   findings   recorded   and   the  conclusion   reached   by   the   Labour   Court   booked   no  error.

9. Another ground noted by the Labour Court was that  when   the   services   of   the   workman   was   terminated,  reference   seeking   relief   of   regularization   being  Reference   No.   354   of   2000   was   pending   before   the  Industrial   Court.   It   was   observed   that   despite  pendency of the said reference, the action was taken  without seeking approval as required under the law.

10. For   the   aforesaid   reasons   and   discussion,   no  error is committed by the Labour Court. The impugned  Page 7 of 8 C/SCA/18789/2013 ORDER judgment   and   award   directing   reinstatement   with  continuity of service without backwages does not call  for any interference. Petition being devoid of merits  is dismissed.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J.)  Chandrashekhar Page 8 of 8