BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ETC. versus JADEJA GOVUBHA CHHANUBHA & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 879 · Decided: 03-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2014] 14 S.C.R. 879 
BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ETC. 
A . 
v. 
JADEJAGOVUBHACHHANUBHA&ANR. 
(CivilAppeal Nos. 10690-10691 of2014) 
DECEMBER 03, 2014 
[T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 25F- Employment 
B 
of respondent-workman with Transport Department of 
appellant-Corporation as 'conductor' - For a period of .18 C 
months - Termination of his services - Industrial dispute -
Labour court's award holding the termination as illegal and 
directing reinstatement with 65% back wages- Single Judge 
of High Court partly allowed thf:! application of the Corporation'.· 
setting aside the award of back wages - Division Bench of 0 
High Court affirmed the order of Single Judge - On appeal, 
.held: The workman has proved that he was in the employment 
of the appellant-Corporation and had completed 240 days 
of continuous service -
Therefore, non-payment of 
retrenchment compensation has rendered the termination 
illegal- However, such illegality does not necessarily result E 
in reinstatement- In view of the facts of the case, is would be 
just to award a compensation of Rs. 2, 50, 0001- in lieu of 
reinstatement - Denial of back wages is justified - Labour 
Laws. 
Evidence: 
Rules of evidence - Scope of applicability- To /about 
cases - Held: Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to 
the proceedings before the labour court- Labour Laws. 
F 
Burden of proof - Burden to prove· the fact that the G 
workman was in actual and continuous service of the 
employer for a particular period, is squarely on the 
workman - Labour laws. 
H 
879 
880 
· SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 14 S.C.R. 
A, 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 For an order of termination of the 
services ofa workman, to be held illegal on account of 
non-payment of retrenchment compensation, it is 
essential for theoworkman to establish that he was in 
B: continuous service of the employer within the meaning 
of Section ?58 of.the lndustrial·Disputes Act, 1947. For 
the respondent to succeed in that attempt, he was 
required ~o show that he was ii'! service for 240 days in 
terms of Section 258(2)(a)(ii). The burden to prove that 
c he was in actual and continuous service of the employer 
for the said period, lay squarely on the workman. 
, 
. 
I 
However, an adverse inference cannot be drawn against 
the employer in case he did not produce the .best 
·evidence available with it. [Para 8][886-F-H; 887-B-C] 
D·1 
. 
. Range Forest Officer v. S. T. Hadimani .(2002) 3 
-SCC 25 : 2002 (1),SCR 108.0 ; Municipal 
Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004) 8 
.sec 195 : 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 145 ; M.P. 
-·, Electricity Board v. Hariram. (2004) 8 SCC 246 ; 
E ·' 
,, Rajasthan State .. Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State 
·-.of Rajasthan &Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 161.: 2004 (4) 
. Suppl. -SCR 363 ; Surendra Nagar District 
. Panchayat anq Anr. v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 
(2005) 8 SCC 450 ; R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant 
Executive Engineer(2006) 1SCC106: 2005 (4) 
Suppl. SCR 1010 ; Manager, Reserve Bank of 
India, Bangalore v: S. Mani, (2005) 5 SCC 100 -
relied on. 
1.2 The Labour Court has placed reliance upon a 
G Xerox copy of a certificate in support of the fact that the 
respondent was in the employment of the appellant-
torporation as a Conductor between 3rd October, 1987 
and 31st March, 1989. While it is true that the Xerox copy 
H 
,. 
BHAVNAGAR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ETC. v. 
·. 881 
JADEJA GOVUBHA CHHANUBHA 
may not be evidence by itself, specially when the A 
respondent had stated that the original was with him, 
but had chosen not to produce the same. Yet the fact 
remains that the document was allowed to be marked at 
the trial, and signature of the officer issuing the· certificate 
· by another officer who was examined by the appellant. B 
Strict ruies of evidence are not applicable' to the 
proceedings before the Labour Court. That being so, 
the admission of the Xerox copy of the certificate, without 
any objection from the appellant-Corporation, cannot be 
faulted at this belated· stage. When seen in .the light of c 
the assertion of the respondent, the certificate in question 
clearly supported the respondent's case. Therefore, the 
non-payment of retrenchment compensation was 
sufficient to render the termination illegal, [Para 9] 
[887-E-H; 888-A-B] 
• 
D 
2. The High Court was also justified in· directing 
deletion of the back wages from the award made by the 
Labour Court against which deletion, the responde

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.