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

       RAJAS THAN STA TE GANGANAGAR S. MILLS LTD.                             A
                                    v.
                 STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

                         SEPTEMBER 13, 2004

            [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.]
                                                                              B

     Labour Laws :

     Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sec. 25(F), (G), (H).

      Causal Labourer-Retrenchment-Minimum period o/240 days-Burden
                                                                              c
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.                                                     D
     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     E
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          F
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        G
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
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.

         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
B   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 -
    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
E
    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]
F
          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
G   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
H   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 considered. In case the
Labour Court comes to a finding in the affirmative its original order
shall be maintained subject to consideration of the seasonal need aspect.
If its answer is in negative the Labour Court could pass appropriate
orders. [367-D, E, Fl                                                           B
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5969 of2004.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 18.4.2003 of the Rajasthan High
Court in D.B.C.S.A. (W) No. 258 of 2003.

    · Manoj Prasad for the Appellant.
                                                                                c
     Jitender Sharma, Jamshed Bey and Parmanand Gaur for the Respondents.

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                D
     ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.: Leave granted.

      The respondent No.2 - Bhagwan Das (hereinafter referred to as the
'workman') raised a dispute which was referred by the Government of
Rajasthan to the Labour Court, Sri Ganga Nagar,.Rajasthan. The dispute of
the workman, inter alia, was to the effect that though he was appointed as      E
a daily-wages employee on lst March, 1990 and continued up to 15th July,
1992 without break. His services were terminated by oral order. It was
pleaded 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 he was entitled to the reinstatement    F
and consequential benefits. The present appellant (hereinafter referred to as
the 'employer') refuted the allegations. It was specifically stated that the
workman had not really worked continuously from 01.03.1990 to 15.7.1992
as pleaded. On the contrary, the workman was engaged whenever there was
work which was of casual nature. His total period of engagement during the
years 1990, 1991 and 1992 was 561/z days, 64 days and 1221/z days               G
respectively. He had worked for a total period of 138 days during the
preceding 12 months. Whenever there was an additional work, the engagement
was done. Keeping in view the scope for additional engagement persons were
engaged and there was no violation of any provision of the Act. The Labour
Court came to hold that the total period during which the workman rendered      H
        :366                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A       work was more than 240 days. Though specific direction was given to the
        employer to produce ·the muster roll for the period from 17.6.1991 to
        12.11.1991, the same was not produced. Accordingly it was 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
B
        for paying 30% of the back wages.

               The order was challenged before the Rajasthan High Court by filing a
        Civil Writ Application bearing No. 2730/2002. A learned Single Judge at the
        first instance dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground. that muster roll for
c       a particular period was not produced. It was held that no interference was
        called for considering the limited jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of
        the Constitution oflndia, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution'), more particularly
        when only 30% of the back wages had been awarded. A Civil Special Appeal
        was filed which was also dismissed by the Division Bench holding that since
D       the retrenchment was found to be invalid on appreciation of evidence and
        for non production of relevant document; no interference is called for.

              In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted 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
E       more than 240 days. The Labour Court failed to notice that even ifthe 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.

              Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-workman submitted that
F
        as the Labour Court has taken into account all relevant factors, no interference ·
    .   is called for. According to him the workman has clearly established that he
        worked for more than 240 days during the relevant period.

              It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more than 240
G       days in the concerned year. This claim was denied by the appellant. It was
        for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked up to
        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
H       that in fact the claimant had worked for 240 days in a year. These aspects
   RAJASTHAN STATE GANGANAGAR S. MILLS LTD. v. STATE [PASAYAT, J.]       367

were highlighted in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, [2002) 3 sec          A
25. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record
in that regard was produced. 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    B
the requirement prima facie does not appear to be fulfille?. The following
period of engagement which was accepted was 6 days in July 1991, 151/2 days
in November 1991, 15\l:z days in January 1992, 24 days in February 1992,
20Yi days in March 1992, 25 days in April 1992, 25 days in May 1992, 7Y:z
days in June 1992 and 5Yi days in July 1992. The Labour Court demanded
production of muster roll for a period of 17.6.1991 to 12.11.1991. It included   C
this period for which the muster roll was not produced and come to the
conclusion that the workman had worked for more than 240 days without
indicating as to the period to which period these 240 days were referable.

      In our view the Labour Court and the High Court have failed to consider
                                                                                 D
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 character. No definite
finding was recorded by the Labour Court or the High Court in that regard.

      We, therefore, remit the matter to the Labour Court to consider the        E
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 examined. If the
engagement is found to be not for 240 days during the relevant period, then
this aspect may not be considered. In case the Labour Court comes to a
finding in the affirmative its original order shall be maintained subject to
                                                                                 F
consideration of the seasonal need aspect. If its answer is in negative the
Labour Court shall pass appropriate orders.

       The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
                                                                                 G
V.M.                                                    Appeal disposed of.