SURENDRANAGAR DISTT. PANCHAYAT AND ANR. versus GANGABEN LALJIBHAI AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 89 · Decided: 03-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SURENDRANAGAR DISTT. PANCHAYAT AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
GANGABEN LALJIBHAI AND ORS. 
JULY 3, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 25 F-Continuous working for 
240 days by workman in a year preceding his termination-Burden of proof-
He/d: Burden of proof lies on the workman-Workman has to adduce evidence C 
also to discharge his burden apart from examining himself-On facts, burden 
not discharged by workmen-Thus, order of courts below holding termination 
illegal on the basis that the burden of proof lies on the employer, set aside. 
Reference was made before the Labour Court whether the alleged 
termination of the services of the respondents-workmen was valid. Labour D 
Court proceeded on the basis that the burden of proving that the workman 
has not worked for 240 days in the preceding year immediate to the date 
of termination lies on the employer and held that since the workman's 
plea that he had worked for various periods for more than 240 days in a 
year being established, there was non-compliance of section 25-F of E 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and as such termination was illegal. Both 
the Single Judge and the Division Bench of High Court upheld the order. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The burden of proof lies 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 himself 
to prove the factum of being in employment of the employer. [95-B-C) 
F 
1.2. In the instant case, the labour court and the High Court also G 
lost sight of the fact that the zerox copies of the attendance and salary 
registers were produced. Respondents have not adduced any evidence 
except making oral statement that they had worked for more than 240 
days. Therefore, the award of the Labour Court on the basis that burden 
of proof lies on the employer and since the workman's plea that he had H 
89 
90 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A worked for various periods for more than 240 days in a year was 
established, there was inon compliance of section 25-F of Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947 and as such termination was illegal, is set aside and 
also the impugned judgment of the Single Judge of High Court as upheld 
by the Division Bench of High Court. (91-B-C; 95-C-DI 
B 
Range Forest Officer v. S. T Hadimani, (2002] 3 SCC 25; Essen Deinki 
v. Rajiv Kumar, 1200218sec400; Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd 
v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., (2004] 8 sec 161; Municipal Corporation, 
Faridabad v. Siri Niwas, (2004] 8 SCC 195; MP. Electricity Board v. 
Hariram, (2004] 8 SCC 24\6; Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore· v. 
C S. Mani and Ors., (2005] 5 SCC 100; Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. 
D 
E 
Sowaran Singh, (2005] 8 SCC 25; Surendranagar District Panchayat v. 
Dehyabhai Amarsingh, (2005) 7 Supreme 307; R.M. Yel/atti v. The Asst. 
Executive Engineer, (2006] 1 SCC 106 and ONGC Ltd. and Anr. v. Shyamal 
Chandra Bhowmik, (2006] I SCC 337, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6383 of2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.9.2003 of the High Court of 
Gujrat at Ahmedabad in L1:tters Patent Appeal No. I 088 of 2002. 
H.A. Raichura and S.H. Raichura for the Appellant. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Appellants challenge correctness of the judgment 
rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the 
F Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellants. By the impugned judgment the 
Division Bench upheld the decision of learned Single Judge. 
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : 
State of Gujarat had made a reference to the Labour Court, Surendra 
G Nagar under Section I 0 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 (in short the 
'Act') basically on the question whether the alleged termination of the services 
of the respondents was valid. Claim of the respondents was that they had 
worked for various period bieyond 240 days in each of the years right from 
the beginning and therefore, the discharge from service of the respondents by 
H oral intimation was not valid. Appellants refuted the stand by stating that the 
nature of the work was purely on daily wages basis depending upon both on 
.. 
SURENDRANAGARDISIT. PANCHAYAT v. GANGABEN LALJIBHAI [PASAYAT, J.) 
91 
work and funds. They specifically pleaded that none of the respondents had A 
completed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.