Holding

The High Court's order is set aside for lack of reasons, and the burden of proof to establish 240 days of service rests on the workman; the matter is remitted for fresh consideration.

Summary

The respondent, a workman in the Public Works Department, was terminated on 31 March 1993. The Labour Court held the termination illegal, finding that he had completed the requisite 240 days of service in the preceding year. The State of Haryana appealed, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition summarily without giving any reasons. The Supreme Court held that a reasoned order is mandatory, especially when the order is open to further challenge, and that the absence of reasons renders the High Court's order unsustainable. The Court also reiterated that the burden of proof to show 240 days of continuous service lies on the workman, who must adduce proper evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration with a direction to dispose of the writ petition within six months.

Issues considered

The High Court's summary dismissal of the writ petition without reasons is legally sustainable.
Whether the burden of proof for establishing 240 days of continuous service under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, lies on the workman.
Whether the termination of the workman was illegal under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 10, s. 25

Subjects

Industrial Disputes Acttermination of service240 days service requirementburden of proofreasoned ordernatural justicesummary dismissallabour court awardjudicial review

Judgment

[2008] 10 S.C.R. 862
i

A STATE OF HARYANA
v.
RAMESH KUMAR
· (Civil Appeal No. 4325 of 2008)
JULY 11, 2008 )""- <
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947'- Termination order- Claim
bf workman that he completed 240 days of service.:.._ Award by
c Labour Court that termination order illegal :.... Challenge to -
Summary dismissal ·of writ petition by High Court -
Sustainability of - Held:· High Court should have given a rea-
saned order indicative of its application of mind - Absence of
reasons rendered the order unsustainable - More so, onus
wa~ on workman to prove that he' worked continuously for 240
D ,.. "'"""'"
days in the year preceding his termination and also 'had to f-
adduce evidence for the same - Thus, order of High Court set
aside - Matter remitted to High Court· for fresh consideration
- Judgment/Order - Reasoned order - Requirement of
f
E The. res.pond.ent was engaged in the Public ··Works
Department in December 1991. He continued to work upto
31.3.1993. Thereafter, he was terminated from service~ The
Lab9~r Court passed an award that the termination was
,,
not sustainable since the ·respondent tiad completed 240
,~ ,....,
F days of service in- fhe year preceding his termination. Ap-
peila.nt-State challenged the award. High Court dismissed
the writ petition summarily. Hence the present appeal.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
·HELD: 1.1-. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On
G
plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to ~
I

~
have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order
indicative of an application of its mind, alf the more when '-
'
its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The
~
H 862
\:
STATE OF HARYANA v. RAMESH KUMAR 863

absence of reasons rendered the order of High Court not A
sustainable. [Para 6] [865-G, 866-A]
State of UP v. Battan and Ors 2001 (10) SCC 607; State
of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan AIR 1982 SC
1215; Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. 1987 (2)
SCC 222 - relied on. B
1.2 Reasons are live links between the mind of the
decision taker to the· controversy in question and the de-
cision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute sub-
jectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording rea- c
sons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face
of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually im-
possible for the Courts to perform their appellate func-
tion or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging
... ~ the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indis-
0
pensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least .
sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter ,
before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party
can know why the decision has gone against him. One of
the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out '
reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking E
out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily in- '
congruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
[Para 7f [866-D,E,FG]
• _..;, State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh 2004(1) SCC 547; Suga , F
Ram @ Chhuga Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2006 (8)
sec 641 - relied on.
Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971 (1) All
E.R. 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree
1974 LCR 120 - referred to. G
1.3 Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law
by this Court, cannot be forsaken, under any pret~.d by
any authority or Court, be it even the Highest Court in a
State, oblivious to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, H
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 10 S.C.R.

A 1950. [Para 6] [866-B,C]
"
2.1 The principle that the burden of proof lies on the
workman to show that he had worked continuously for 240
days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrench-

8
ment and it is for the ·workman to adduce evidence apart
from examining himself to prove the factum of his being in
'y ...
employment of the employer. [Para 11] [867-G]
Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd. 1981 (3) SCC 225;
Range Forest Officer v. S. T Hadimani 2002 (3) SCC 25;
c Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan
2004 (8) SCC 161; Municipal Corpn., Faridabad v. Siri Niwas
2004 (8).SCC 195; M.P Electricity Board v. Hariram 2004 (8)
sec 246; Surendrangar District Panchayat and Anr. VS.
Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 (8) SCC 450 - relied on.
D 3. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside -\.- ,..._

and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration in
accordance with law. [Para 13] [868-A,B]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4325
of 2008
E
From the Judgment and final Order dated 14/3/2005 of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P.
No. 575 of 2004
Manjit Singh and T.V. George for the Appellant.
F Jo..._ "'Ill

Rishi Malhotra for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
G 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court summarily
~
dismissing the Civil Writ Petition filed by the_ State. Challenge
in the writ petition was to the award passed by the Presiding
Officer, Labour court, U.T. Chandigarh in a reference made un-
H der Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 (in short the
STATE OF HARYANA v. RAMESH KUMAR 865
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

'Act'). The respondent claimed that he was working in the office A
of the Public Works Department B&R since December 1991
and continued to work upto 31 51 March, 1993. He claimed to
have completed 240 days of service and to have drawn the
salary. The allegation was that without any justifiable reason his
' ~ services were terminated w.e. f. 31.3.1993. A civil suit was filed B
tor mandatory injunction against the department. The Depart-:
ment took the view that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to
entertain the suit. Subsequently, demand notice was issued and
the matter was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court
found that the alleged termination was not sustainable. The c
Labour Court took the view that since the workman was en-
gaged in December, 1991 and worked upto 31.1.1993 he is
presumed to have completed 240 days of service. Therefore,
provision of Section 25 of the Act was not complied with.
• -4 3. Writ Petition was filed by the appellant questioning car- D
rectness of the award which was dismissed summarily as noted
above.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
Labour Court did not take note of the fact that the claim petition
was made after about 5 years of the alleged termination. The E 1

High Court should not have dismissed the writ petition in a sum-
mary manner without indicating any reason. It was further sub- ·
mitted that the respondent had not completed 240 days of ser-
vice within 12 calendar months preceding the alleged date of
termination. The award of 50% back wages with a direction of F
re-instatement therefore cannot be sustained.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
submitted that the burden is on the employer to show that the ·
concerned employee had not completed 240 days of service.
G
6. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest con-
.~
sideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its
reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an applica- ·
tion of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to fur-
ther avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered H
866. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R

A the High Court order not sustainable. Similar view was ex-
pressed in State of UP v. Battan and Ors (2001 (10) SCC
607). About two decades back in State of Maharashtra v. Vithal
Rao Pritirao Chawan (Al R 1982 SC 1215) the desirability of a
speaking order while dealing with an application for grant of
s leave was highlighted. The requirement of indicating reasons )' ,
in such cases has been judicially recognized as imperative. The
view was re-iterated in Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and
Ors. (1987 (2) SCC 222). Judicial discipline to abide by decla-
ration of law by this Court, cannot be forsaken, under any pre-
C text by any authority or Court, be it even the Highest Court in a
State, oblivious to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950
(in short the 'Constitution').
7. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning
M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1)
D All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the t ,
fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery
(Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: "Fail-
ure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are
live links between the mind of the decision taker to the contro-
E versy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at".
Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on
recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable
face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually im-
possible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or
F exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of
the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound
judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an appli-
cation of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is
that the affected party can know why the decision has gone
G against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice
is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a
speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily
incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.
8. These aspects were highlighted in State of Punjab v.
H Bhag Singh (2004(1) SCC 547) and Suga Ram @ Chhuga
STATE OF HARYANA v. RAMESH KUMAR 867
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2006 (8) s.cc 641 ). A
9. In Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd. (1981 (3) SCC
225), it is said by this Court that before a workman can claim

..
retrenchment not being in consonance with Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, he has to show that he has been in con-:-
tinuous seNice for not less than one year with the employer who B
"""
had retrenched him from seNice.
10. In Range 'Forest Officer v. S. T Hadimani (2002 (3)
SCC 25) this Court held that: (SCC p. 26, para 3)
"In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the c
onus on the management without first determining on the.
basis of congent evidence tha_t the respondent had worked
for more than 240 days in the year preceding his
termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so
/ ... worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was D
then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had·
in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his
termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement·
in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient
evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion · E
that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year..
No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or
order or record of appointment or engagement for this

.. _;
period was produced by the workman. On this ground
alone, the award is liable to be set aside."
11. This Court again in Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. :
F

Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (2004 (8) SCC 161 ), Municipal
Corpn., Faridabad v. Sin· Niwas (2001 (8) SCC 195) and MP
Electricity Boara v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246), has reiter-
ated the principle that the burden of proof lies on the workman G
to show that he had worked conti.nuously for 240 days in the:
preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment and it is
for the workman to adduce evidence apart from examining him-
self to prove the factum of his being in employment of the em-
player. H
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 10 S.C.R.

A 12. The position was highlighted in Surendrangar District
Panchayat and Anr. vs. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai (2005 (8) SCC
450).
13. In view of the position in law as highlighted by this Court
as afore-noted we set aside the impugned order'of the High
8 Court and remit the matter for fresh consideration in accordance
with law. Since the matter is pending since long, it would be
desirable that the High Court should dispose of the writ petition
as early as practicable preferably within 6 months from the date
of receipt of this order.
c
14. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order
as to costs.
N.J. Appeal disposed of.

,