The Range Forest Officer
v.
S.t. Hadimani
(Supreme Court Of India)
Civil Appeal No. 1283 Of 2002 | 15-02-2002
2. In the instant case, dispute was referred to the Labour Court that the respondent had 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 or the service and that the affidavit of the workman was sufficient to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year.
3. 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 vs. Pratam Singh Narsinh Parmar [JT 2001 (3) SC 326 [LQ/SC/2001/270] ]. 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 his claim was denied by the appellant. It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked or 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 an Court of 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 of 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.
4. The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Advocates List
For the Petitioner Sanjay R. Hegde, Advocate. For the Respondent Mohan V. Katarki, Ashok Kumar Sharma, Advocates.
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KIRPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARIJIT PASAYAT
Eq Citation
2002 LABIC 987
2002 (3) SCT 382 (SC)
2002 (2) SLJ 316 (SC)
[2002] 1 SCR 1080
(2002) 3 SCC 25
AIR 2002 SC 1147
2002 (93) FLR 179
(2002) 1 UPLBEC 920
(2002) 1 LLJ 1053 (SC)
(2002) 2 MLJ 137 (SC)
2002 (2) PLJR 21
2002 (2) RLW 319 (SC)
JT 2002 (2) SC 238
2002 (2) SCALE 242
LQ/SC/2002/234
HeadNote
Labour Law — Retrenchment/Lay-off/Retrenchment — Termination of service — Retrenchment compensation — Proof of working for 240 days — Affidavit — Sufficiency of — Tribunal placing burden on employer to show that there was justification in termination of service and that affidavit of workman was sufficient to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a year — Held, Tribunal was not right in placing onus on employer without first determining on basis of cogent evidence that respondent had worked for more than 240 days in 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 Court or Tribunal to come to 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 workman — On this ground alone award liable to be set aside — Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, S. 25-F