KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD. versus MOHAMMED RAFI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 305 · Decided: 24-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
-.• 
KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD. 
A 
v. 
MOHAMMED RAFI 
AUGUST 24, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, I 947-Section 2 5 F-Continuous working for 
240 days by workman in a year preceding his termination-Burden of proof-
Held: Burden of proof lies on the workman-It is discharged upon the workman C 
adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. 
A reference was to Labour Court with regard to the alleged 
termination of services of the workman-daily wage employee. Labour 
Court passed an award holding the termination illegal and set it aside 
directing re-instatement. Single Judge of High Court in the writ petition D 
of the employer held that the workman had not discharged the initial onus 
of proving that he had worked for more than 240 days with the appellant-
employer and thus, set aside the award. However, the Division Bench of 
the High Court set aside the order and restored the award made by the 
Labour Court. Hence the present appeal. 
The appellant-employer contended that the High Court erred in 
proceeding on the basis as if the period of employment/engagement of a 
workman has to be established by the employer. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The initial burden of proof is on the workman-claimant to 
show that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding 
E 
F 
his termination. This burden is discharged, as has been held in *R.M 
Yellatti v. The Asst. Executive Engineer's, case upon the workman adducing 
cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of . G 
services of daily wage earner, there will be no letter of appointment or 
termination and also no receipt or proof of payment. In most cases, 
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 H 
305 
306 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend 
thereafter on facts of each case. Mere affidavits or self-serving statements 
made by the claimant/workman will not suffice. Mere non-production of 
muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant 
workman will not be the ground for the tribunal or the Court to draw an 
B adverse inference against the management. Therefore, the order of the 
Division Bench of the High Court cannot be maintained and is set aside. 
1310-G-H; 311-A-BI 
R.M. Yellatti v. The Asst. Executive Engineer, JT (2005) 9 SC 340; 
Range Forest Officer v. S. T. Hadimani, [20021 3 SCC 25; Essen Deinki v. 
C 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; M.P. Electricity Board v. 
Hariram, 12004) 8 SCC 246; Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. 
S. Mani and Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 100; Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. 
Sowaran Singh, 12005] 7 Supreme 165; Surendranagar District Panchayat 
D v. Dehyabhai Amarsingh, (2005} 7 Supreme 307; ONGC Ltd. and Anr. v. 
Shyamal Chandra Bhowmik, 12006J t SCC 337 and Chief Engineer, Ranjit 
Sagar Dam and Anr. v. Sham Lal, (2006) AIR SCW 3574, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3639 of2006. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.8.2005 of the High Court of 
Kamataka at Bangalore, in Writ Appeal No. 1500 of 2005 (L-TER). 
Naveen R. Nath and Anitha Shenoy for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
G 
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division 
Bench of the Karnataka High Court, Bangalore allowing the writ appeal filed 
by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman') and restoring the 
A ward made by the Labour Court. 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 
The workman had been working as a daily wage employee 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 
H State of Kamataka. His services were allegedly terminated which gave rise 
to an industrial dispute. According to the claim made by the workman he 
> 
KRISHNA BHAGY AJALA NIGAM LTD. v. MOHAMMED RAFI [PASAYAT,J.] 
307 
served the Jala Nigam from 29. l 0.1989 to 1.4.1996. He further claimed that A 
his services were terminated w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.