CHIEF ENGINEER, RANJIT SAGAR DAM AND ANR. versus SHAM LAL

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 80 · Decided: 03-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHIEF ENGINEER, RANJIT SAGAR DAM AND ANR. 
V. 
SHAM LAL 
JULY 3, 2006 
B 
[ARIJJT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Labour Laws: 
Termination-Burden to prove that the workman completed 240 days of 
C service in the year preceding his termination-Held: ls on the workman. 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section I 0-Reference under-Long delay 
in seeking reference-Effect of-Held: It would depend on facts of each 
D individual case-Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate 
Government to exercise its powers under s. I 0-But this power cannot be 
exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been 
settled-Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is 
E whether the High Court erred in upholding the order of the Labour Court 
that the burden lay on the Appellant-employer to prove that the 
Respondent-workman had not worked for 240 days or more in the year 
prior to his termination and that the High Court lost sight of the fact that 
the claim made by the workman was highly belated. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: 1. The initial burden of proof was on the workman to show 
that he had completed 240 days of service. (84-G) 
Range Forest Officer v. S. T. Hadimani, (2002) 3 SCC 25; Essen Deinki 
G v. Rajiv Kumar, (2002) 8 SCC 400; Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. 
v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., (2004) 8 SCC 161; Municipal Corporation, 
Faridabad v. Shri Nivas, (2004) 8 SCC 195; MP. Electricity Board v. 
Hariram, (2004] 8 SCC 24tl; Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. 
S. Mani and Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 100; Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd v. 
H 
80 
' , 
,j. 
CHIEF ENGINEER, RANJIT SAGAR DAM v. SHAM LAL [PASAYA T, J.] 81 
Sowaran Singh, [20051 7 Supreme 165; Surendranagar District Panchayat A 
v. Dehyabhai Amarsingh, [20051 7 Supreme 307; R.M Yellatti v. The Asstt. 
Executive Engineer, [2006[ I SCC I06 and ONGC Ltd. and Anr. v. Shyamal 
Chandra Bhowmik, [200611 SCC 337, relied on. 
2. So far as delay in seeking the reference is concerned, no formula 
of universal application can be laid down. It would depend on facts of each B 
individual case. Law does not prescribe any time-limit for the appropriate 
Government to exercise its powers under Section IO of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point 
of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be 
exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. A dispute which is stale C 
could not be the subject matter of reference under Section IO of the Act. 
As to when a dispute can be said to· be stale would depend on the facts 
and circumstances of each case. (85-H; 86-A-D) 
Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors., (2000[ 2 SCC 
455; SM Nilajkar and Ors. v. Telecom District Manager, Karna/aka, [2003) D 
4 SCC 27 and Management of Sudamdih Colliery of Mis. Bharat Coking Coal 
ltd. v. Their Workmen represented by Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, 
[20061 I Supreme 282, relied on. 
3. Above being the position, impugned judgment of the High Court 
is indefensible and is set aside. In case the respondent has been reinstated E 
pursuant to the order of the Labour Court or the High Court, salary and 
other emoluments paid to him shall not be recovered. (87-H; 88-AI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3253 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17 .2.2003 of the High Court of F 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 19644 of 2002. 
Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey and Arun K. Sinha for the Appellants. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment 
rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court 
dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. By the impugned order 
learned Single Judge upheld the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour 
Court, Gurdaspur who held that the burden lies on the employer to prove that H 
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A the workman had not worked for 240 days or more in the year imme:diately 
preceding the tenninaiion. The alleged date of termination is 13.11.1990. 
According to the respondent, he joined in November, 1989 whereas according 
to the appellant he joined in August, 1999. Demand for making the reference 
was made on 15.12.1999 i.e. after a long period of about 9 years. The workman 
was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.