SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT PANCHAYAT versus DAHYABHAI AMARSINH

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 511 · Decided: 25-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SURENDRANAGAR DISTRICT PANCHA YAT 
A 
V. 
DAHY ABHAI AMARSINH 
OCTOBER 25, 2005 
[S.N. VARIAVA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 25F-Retrenchment of 
workman-Workman's case that he was in service for 10 years and as such C 
termination illegal for non-compliance of section 25F, G and H, whereas 
employer's case that workman not completed 240 days of continuous service 
in a year preceding termination-Reinstatement order by courts below 
drawing adverse inference against employer for non-production of record of 
workman-On appeal held: Burden of proof was on the workman that he D 
worked continuouslv for 240 days preceding date of termination but he 
failed to discharge the burden-Also adverse inference was wrongly drawn-
Employer was not entitled to maintain seniority list of employee engaged on 
·dai(v wages-Hence, workman not entitled to compliance of section 25F, 
25G and 25H before termination and as such reinstatement order set aside-
Sections 25B, 25G and 25H. 
E 
Section 25B-Purport of-Explained. 
Appellant-Panchayat terminated the services of the respondent-employee. 
The respondent challenged the termination on the.ground that. he was in 
service for more than 10 years and his services were terminated without F 
complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Appellant 
contended that the workman had.not completed 240 days of continuous service 
in 12 months preceding the date of termination of service and as such there 
was no need of complying with the provisions of the Act. Labour Court drew 
an adverse inference against the employer for non-production of muster roll G 
and salary register and held that the termination of the workman was illegal 
as he had worked for more than 240 days, and directed reinstatement of 
workman with back wages. Both Single Judge and Division Bench of High 
Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. 
511 
H 
512 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellant-Panchayat contended that it was the case of the respondent-
workman that he had worked for 240 days with the employer in a year, as 
such the initial burden of proof was on the workman that he had actually 
worked for 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the 
date of termination but he failed to discharge the burden; and that the non 
B production of 10 years record by the employer does not call for drawing an 
adverse inference against the Panchayat. 
Respondent-employee contended that the employer being in possession 
of the relevant material, was duty bound to produce it and the burden lies on 
the employer to prove that the workman had not worked for 240 days in a 
C year preceding the relevant period; and that the Labour Court was right in 
drawing an adverse inference for non-production of the record. · 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. As per Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, no 
D workman who is in continuous service for not less than one year under an 
employer in the industry shall be retrenched by that employer unless 
conditions laid therein are fulfilled. Therefore, if the employer is to retrench 
such workmen he has to follow the provisions of section 25F of the Act. To 
attract provisions of section 25F, the workman claiming protection under it, 
has to prove that there exists relationship of employer and employee; that he 
E is a workman within the meaning of section 2(s); that the establishment in 
which he is employed is an industry within the meaning of the Act; and that 
he must have put in not less than one year of continuous service as defined by 
section 258 under the employer. These conditions are cumulative. If any of 
these conditions are missing the provisions of section 25F will not be 
F attracted. To get relief from the court the workman has to establish that he 
has right to continue in s~rvice and that his services have been terminated 
without complying with the provisions of section 25F of the Act. 
1518-F-G; 519-A-DI 
1.2. The workmen 5hall be said to be in continuous service for one year 
G i.e., 12 months irrespective of the number of days he has actually worked 
with interrupted service, on account of sickness, authorized leave, an accident, 
a strike which is not illegal, a lock-out or cessation of work, that is not due 
to any fault on the part of the workman, permissible under Section 258. 
However, the workmen must have been in service during the period, i

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