KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD. versus MOHAMMED RAFI

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 28-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 109 
KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD. 
A 
v. 
MOHAMMED RAFI 
Civil Appeal No. 2895 of 2009 
APRIL 28, 2009 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR 
GANGULY, JJ.) 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 
Sections 10, 25-F - Claim for regularization - Burden of c 
proving that the workman had worked for more than 240 days 
in the preceding one year prior to the alleged retrenchment -
Held: The burden is on the workman. 
The termination of certain workmen was under 
i 
challenge and the Labour Court recorded a finding that D 
they were terminated without complying with the 
provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act 
and hence the termination was illegal. It directed 
reinstatement of the workmen with back wages. The award 
was challenged by filing a writ petition. The Single Judge E 
held that the workmen had not discharged the initial onus 
of proving that they worked for more than 240 days and 
held their reinstatement was illegal, and set aside the 
award. However, the Division Bench allowed the writ 
appeal, against which the present appeal,has been filed. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : The initial burden of proof was on the 
workman to show that he had completed 240 days of 
service in the preceding one year prior to the alleged 
G 
retrenchment. This burden is discharged upon the 
workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and 
documentary. (Para 10, 11) [115-F-G; 116-D-E] 
Range Forest Officer v. S. T Hadimani 2002 (3) SCC 25; 
109 
H 
'
110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
Essen Deinki 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. Siri 
Niwas 2004 (8) SCC 195; MP. Electricity Board v. Hariram 
2004 (8) SCC 246; Manager, Reserve Bank of India, 
B Bangalore v. S. Mani and Ors. 2005(5) SCC 100; Batala 
Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Sowaran Singh 2005 (7) 
Supreme 165; Surendranagar District Panchayat v. 
Dehyabhai Amarsingh 2005 (7) Supreme 307; R.M. Yellatti v. 
The Asst. Executive Engineer JT 2005 (9) SC 340; ONGC 
c Ltd. and Anr. v. Shyamal Chandra Bhowmik 2006 (1) SCC 
337 and Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam and Anr. v. Sham 
Lal 2006 AIR SCW 3574 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
D 
2002 (3) sec 25 
referred to 
Para 6 
2002 (8) sec 400 
referred to 
Para 7 
2004 (8) sec 161 
referred to 
Para 8 
2004 (8) sec 195 
referred to 
Para 9 
E 
2004 (8) sec 246 
referred to 
Para 9 
2005(5) sec 100 
referred to 
Para 10 
2005 (7) Supreme 165 referred to 
Para 10 
F 
2005 (7) Supreme 307 referred to 
Para 10 
JT 2005 (9) SC 340 
referred to 
Para 11 
2006 (1) sec 337 
referred to 
Para 12 
2006 AIR sew 3574 
referred to 
Para 12 
G 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2895 
of 2009 
From the Judgement and Order dated 02.08.2005 of the 
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in the Writ Appeal 
H No. 1500 of 2005 (l-TER) 
' 
' . 
~ 
KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD. V. 
111 
MOHAMMED RAFI 
Naveen R. Nath, for the Appellant(s). 
R.V. Naik, R.R. Naik, R.K. Gupta, S.K. Tondon, Pritam Shah 
(for Rameshwar Prasad Goyal), for the Respondent(s). 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
1. Leave granted. 
A 
B 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the 
Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowing the writ 
appeal filed by the respondent. By the impugned judgment the C 
Division Bench set aside the order passed by a learned Single 
Judge and the award made by the Labour Court. 
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
The workman had been working as a daily wage employee D 
with the Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited (for short the 'Jala 
Nigam') which, at the relevant point of time was executing the 
Upper Krishna Project in the State of Karnataka. His services 
were allegedly terminated which gave rise to an industrial 
dispute. According to the claim made by the workman he served - E 
the Jala Nigam from 29.10.1989 to 1.4.1996. He further claimed 
that his services were terminated without complying with the 
provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 
(for short the Act).A reference under Section 10(1) (c) of the Act 
was made to the Labour Court, Gulbarga. Several other F 
employees had also challenged the termination of their services 
and other references had been made to the Labour Court and 
some of the employees had also filed applications before it 
under sub-section
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.