RANIP NAGAR PALIKA versus BABUJI GABHAJI THAKORE AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 456 · Decided: 23-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

--,._ 
A 
RANIP NAGAR PALIKA 
v. 
BABUJI GABHAJI THAKORE AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 23, 2007 
B 
(DR. ARlJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIV AM, JJ.] 
, 
). 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-s. 25-F-Termination of 
workmen-Challenged as being in contravention of s. 25-F-Courts 
c below directing their reinstatement holding that burden to prove non-
completion of continuous 240 days service, was on the employer-On 
appeal, held: Burden to prove continuous service for 240 days is on 
the workman-Courts below have not considered the matter in proper 
perspective-Hence, matter remitted to Labour Court-Evidence-
D Burden of proof 
A 
The services of respondent-workmen were terminated by the 
appellant-employer. Workmen challenged the same on the ground that 
it was without following the procedure under s. 25-F of Industrial 
E Disputes Act, 1947. They claimed that they were working since, 1991 
continuously till their termination i.e. on 16.5.1994. Labour Court 
directed their re-instatement with continuity of service. Single Judge 
as well as Division Bench of High Court confirmed the Order ofLabour 
Court. 
F 
In appeal to this Court appellant contended that in absence of plea 
as well as finding by the Labour Court regarding completed 240 days 
of service, High Court was not justified in holding that the Labour Court 
concluded that the workmen had completed 240 days of service; that 
G the Courts below erroneously put the onus on the employer, to establish 
that the workmen had not completed 240 days of service, while the same 
is on the person who claimed to have rendered more than 240 days of 
----
service. 
456 
H 
' 
-. 
RANIP NAGAR PALIKA v. BABUJI GABHAJI THAKORE 457 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the Labour Court, A 
the Court 
HELD: 1. The burden of prooflies on the workman to show that 
he had worked continuously for 240 days for the preceding one year 
and it is for the workman to adduce evidence apart from examining B 
himself to prove the factum of being in employment of the 
employer. [Para 15] [463-G, H; 464-A] 
Range Forest Officer v. Hadimani, [2002] 3 SCC 25; Essen Deinki 
v. Raj iv Kumar, [2002] 8 SCC 400; Rajasthan State Ganganagar S Mills 
Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., [2004] 8 SCC 161; Municipal C 
Corporation, Faridabadv. Siri Niwas, [2004] 8SCC195; MP. Electricity 
Boardv. Hariram, [2004] 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, [2005] 8 SCC 25; Surendranagar 
District Panchayatv. Dehyabhai Amarsingh, (2005) 7 Supreme 307; RM D 
Yellatti v. The Asst. Executive Engineer, [2006) 1 SCC 106; ONGC Ltd. 
and Anr. v. Shyamal Chandra Bhowmik, [2006] 1 SCC 337 and 
Surendranagar Distt. Panchayatv. Gangaben Laljibhai and Ors., [2006) 
9 sec 132, relied on 
E 
2. The appellant-management had produced materials to show that 
the claim of the respondent-workmen thatthey had worked from 1991 
was patently wrong. In fact, finding has been recorded that one of the 
respondents had worked since January, 1994 contrary to the claim of 
having worked from 1991. There was need for factual adjudication on p 
the basis of the materials adduced by the parties. That apparently has 
not been done. Therefore the orders of the Labour Court, Single Judge 
and Division Bench of the High Court are set aside and the matter is 
remitted to the Labour Court to consider the matter afresh. It has to 
specifically record a finding as to whether the claim of the workmen of G 
_ _, 
continuance of service is acceptable. It has also to be decided as to 
whether the workmen had completed 240 days of service. That decision 
is vital to sec whether Section 25-F of the Act has any relevance. 
[Paras 16and17) (464-A, B, C, DJ 
H 
458 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4468 of 
2005. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.4.2003 of the High 
Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in LP.A. No. 424 of2003 No. 612000. 
B 
Mahendra Anand, H.S. Parihar and Kuldeep S. Parihar for the 
c 
Appellant. 
P .K. Manohar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. In the present appeal challenge is 
to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court 
dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant. In the Letters 
Patent Appeal challenge was to the order passed by a learned Single 
0 Judge who had dismissed the writ pe
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.