Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani

Supreme Court15 February 2002B.N. Kirpal · Arijit Pasayat

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a workman claims to have worked for 240 days or more in the year preceding termination, the burden is on the workman to prove this claim by cogent evidence; an affidavit by the workman alone is insufficient to discharge this burden, and the claim must be supported by independent proof such as salary or wage receipts, orders of appointment, or contemporaneous records of engagement.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 1283 of 2002
PETITIONER:RANGE FOREST OFFICER
RESPONDENT:S.T. HADIMANI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/02/2002
BENCH:B.N. KIRPAL & ARIJIT PASAYAT
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2002 (1) SCR 1080
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.

In the instant case, dispute was referred to the Labour Court that the respondent and worked for 240 days and his service had been terminated without paying him any retrenchment compensation. The appellant herein did not accept this and contended that the respondent had not worked for 240 days. The Tribunal vide its award dated 10th August, 1998, came to the conclusion that the service had been terminated without giving retrenchment compensation. In arriving at the conclusion that the respondent had worked for 240 days, the Tribunal stated that the burden was on the Management to show that there was justification in termination of the service and that the affidavit of the workman was sufficient to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year.

For the view we are taking, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether the appellant is an "industry" or not, though reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in State of Gujarat v. Pratam Singh Narsinh Parmar, JT (2001) 3 SC 326. In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the Management without first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that 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 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 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. However, Mr. Hegde appearing for the Department states that the State is really interested in getting the law settled and the respondent will be given an employment on compassionate grounds on the same terms as he was allegedly engaged prior to his termination, within two months from today.

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free