STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus DATIATRAYA DIGAMBER BIRAJDAR

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 504 · Decided: 27-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
v. 
DA TIA TRAY A DI GAMBER BIRAJDAR 
AUGUST 27, 2007 
(DR. ARIJIT PASA Y ATAND D.K. JAIN, JJ.J 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-s. JO-Re-instatement with back wages-
Claim of-Daily wager leaving employment of establishment forjoining 
C another Department and thereafter terminated from the Department-Claim 
for continuity of service with the first establishment-Held: There was sufficient 
material and evidence that claimant not in employment of first establishment 
and had voluntarily left to join another Department-Thus, courts below not 
justified in granting the claim and erred in holding that burden to prove that 
claimant worked for more than 240 days was on employer-Also, the claim 
D raised was stale-Hence, order of courts below set aside. 
Respondent was working as daily wager in Public Works Division-
appellant's establishment since 1984. On 10.3.1986, 52.posts·of Surveyor on. 
contract employment were created in Soil Conservation Department.By order 
dated 18.3.1986 respondent was appointed as Surveyor in the Soil Conservation 
E Department and was to join from 3.4.1986 .. Thereafter, he was transferred to 
other place. Subsequently, 52 posts of Surveyor on temporary establishment 
were abolished and respondent was terminated from the Department. 
Respondent filed application under section l 0 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947 seeking continuity of service with back wages with PWD. It was 
F submitted that he was working in PWD till 30.4.1986 when he was orally 
terminated. Labour Court passed an award holding that the termination of 
respondent with effect from 30.4.1986 was illegal and he was to be reinstated 
with 25% back wages. High Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. 
G 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: It is crystal clear that ample material and evidence were placed 
before the Labour Court to justify the stand that with effect from 3.4.1986 
respondent was not in the employment of the appellant. He himself had 
voluntarily left the department to join another dep_artment. In any event, the 
claim was stale and was filed after about eight years of the alleged order of 
504 
-1-
> 
STA TE v. DA TIA 1RA YADIGAMBERBIRAJDAR[PASA YAT,J.] 
505 
termination. The Labour Court and the High Court erroneously held that the A 
burden to prove engagement of240 days lies on the employer. Thus, the order 
of the Tribunal and the A ward by the Labour Court as upheld by the High 
Court cannot be maintained and are set aside. 
[Paras 6 and 7) (507-B, C, DJ 
Range Forest Officer v. S. T. Hadimani (2002) 3 SCC 25, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1000 of2006. 
B 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2004 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No. 444 of c 
2004. 
Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the order D 
passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad. 
The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. Challenge in the writ 
petition was to the A ward made by the Labour Court, Aurangabad. 
2. Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:-
E 
Respondent was working as a daily wager as Mukadam and was being 
paid Rs.30/- per day in the Public Works Division, Osmanabad, District 
Maharashtra since August, 1984. On 10.3.1986 the District Commissioner of 
Labour, Aurangabad created 52 posts of Surveyor on contract employment. 
Respondent joined as Surveyor in the office of Divisional Soil Conservation F 
Officer with effect from 3.4.1986 on consolidated pay of Rs.450/- per month. 
On 25.9.1986 the Deputy Divisional Soil Conservation Officer transferred the 
respondent to Paranda with effect from 6.10.1986 to the office of Sub-Divisional 
and Soil Conservation Officer, Aurangabad. On 5.8.1987 Divisional Soil 
Conservation Officer abolished all the 52 posts of Surveyor engaged on 
various places as they were on temporary establishment. Accordingly, service G 
of respondent as Surveyor came to be terminated on 20.8.1987. After about 
eight years, respondent submitted an application for reference in terms of 
Section l 0 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the 'Act') befor\! 
Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Aurangabad. It was stated that the 
respondent was working in the Public Works Department, Aurangabad till H 
506 
SUPREME 

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