RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR S. MILLS LTD. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 363 · Decided: 13-09-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

RAJAS THAN ST A TE GANGANAGAR S. MILLS LTD. 
v. 
ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2004 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Labour Laws : 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sec. 25(F), (G), (H). 
Causal Labourer-Retrenchment-Minimum period o/240 days-Burden 
of Proof to show total period of engagement-Held, it is for the workman 
to prove that he has worked for 240 days-Mere non-production of muster-
roll by employer is not sufficient to draw an inference-No finding on the 
claim of employer that the engagement has seasonal in nature-Matter 
remanded to Labour Court. 
Respondent No.2 raised a dispute to the effect that though he was 
appointed as a daily wages employee on 1st March, 1990 and continued. 
up to 15th J\lly, 1992 without break, his services were terminated by 
oral order; that the dispensation of service amounted .to retrenchment 
and since the provisions of Section 25 (F}, (G) and (H) of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') were violated ~e was entitled to 
reinstatement and consequential benefits. 
Appellant contended that the workman had not really worked 
continuously as pleaded, that he was engaged whenever there was work 
which was of casual nature, that he had worked for a total period of 138 
days during the preceding 12 months and that there was no violation of 
any provision of the Act. The Labour Court held that the sanctioned 
days and the days covered by the muster roll, which was not produced, 
taken together indicated that the workman had worked for more than 
240 days. Accordingly direction was given to reinstate the workman and 
for paying 30% of the back wages. A Single Judge of the High Court 
dismissed the Writ Petitinn ~n the ground that muster roll for a particular 
period was not produced. The Civil Special Appeal was also dismissed 
by the Division Bench holding that since the retrenchment was found to 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
be invalid on appreciation of evidence and for non-production of relevant H 
363 
364 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
document no interference was called for. 
B 
Before this Court Appellant contended that both the Labour Court 
and the High Court fell into error by placing burden on the employer 
to prove that the concerned workman has not worked for more than 
240 days, that the Labour Court failed to notice that even if the period 
for which the muster roll was not produced is reckoned, then also the 
requirement of 240 days work during twelve months preceding alleged 
date of termination .is not established. 
Respondent-workman submitted that as the Labour Court has taken 
C 
into account all relevant factors, no interference is called for and that 
the workman has clearly established that he had worked for more than 
240 days during the relevant period. 
Disposing of the Appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD : 1. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he -
E 
F 
G 
H 
had in fact worked upto 240 days in the year preceding his termination. 
He has filed an affidavit. It is only his own statement which is in his 
favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any Court 
or Tribunal to come to the conclusion that in fact the claimant had 
worked for 240 days in a year. Mere non-production of the muster roll 
for a particular period was not sufficient for the Labour Court to hold 
that the workman had worked for 240 days as claimed. Even if that 
period is taken into account with the period as stated in the affidavit 
filed by the employer the requirement prima facie does not appear to be 
fulfiJled. (366-G, H; 367-A, B] 
Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadinani, [2002] 3 SCC 25, referred to. 
2. The Labour Court and the High Court have failed to consider 
the statutory requirements in their proper perspective. One of the stands 
taken by the employer was that the engagement was made keeping in 
view the temporary needs and it was seasonal in ch.aracter. No definite 
findings was recorded by the Labour Court or the High Court, in that 
regard. Hence matter is remitted to the Labour Court to consider the 
evidence and come to a definite conclusion as to whether the workman 
had worked for 240 days during the period claimed. While considering 
the matter afresh, the aspect of need of engagement shall also be 
RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGARS. MILLS LTD. v. STATE [PASAYAT, J.] 365 
examined. If the engagement is found to be not for 240 days during the 
A 
relevant period, then this aspect may not be consid

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