KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD.versusMOHAMMED RAFI

                     KRISHNA BHAGYA JALA NIGAM LTD.                                A
                                   v.
                             MOHAMMED RAFI

                                AUGUST 24, 2006

           [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]                         B


            Industrial Disputes Act, I 947-Section 2 5 F-Continuous working for
      240 days by workman in a year preceding his termination-Burden ofproof-
      Held: Burden ofproof lies on the workman-It is discharged upon the workman   C
      adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary.

            A reference was to Labour Court with regard to the alleged
      termination of services of the workman-daily wage employee. Labour
      Court passed an award holding the termination illegal and set it aside
      directing re-instatement. Single Judge of High Court in the writ petition    D
      of the employer held that the workman had not discharged the initial onus
      of proving that he had worked for more than 240 days with the appellant-
      employer and thus, set aside the award. However, the Division Bench of
      the High Court set aside the order and restored the award made by the
      Labour Court. Hence the present appeal.
                                                                                   E
'
           The appellant-employer contended that the High Court erred in
      proceeding on the basis as if the period of employment/engagement of a
      workman has to be established by the employer.

           Allowing the appeal, the Court
                                                                                   F
            HELD: The initial burden of proof is on the workman-claimant to
      show that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding
      his termination. This burden is discharged, as has been held in *R.M
      Yellatti v. The Asst. Executive Engineer's, case upon the workman adducing
      cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of . G
      services of daily wage earner, there will be no letter of appointment or
      termination and also no receipt or proof of payment. In most cases,
      workman-claimant can only call upon the employer to produce before the
      court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of
      appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance H
                                         305

-.•
    306                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend
    thereafter on facts of each case. Mere affidavits or self-serving statements
    made by the claimant/workman will not suffice. Mere non-production of
    muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant
    workman will not be the ground for the tribunal or the Court to draw an
B   adverse inference against the management. Therefore, the order of the
    Division Bench of the High Court cannot be maintained and is set aside.
                                                           1310-G-H; 311-A-BI

        R.M. Yellatti v. The Asst. Executive Engineer, JT (2005) 9 SC 340;
  Range Forest Officer v. S. T. Hadimani, [20021 3 SCC 25; Essen Deinki v.
C Rajiv Kumar, [2002] 8 SCC 400; Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd.
  v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., [2004) 8 SCC 161; Municipal Corporation,
  Faridabad v. Siri Niwas, (2004) 8 SCC 195; M.P. Electricity Board v.
  Hariram, 12004) 8 SCC 246; Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v.
  S. Mani and Ors., (2005) 5 SCC 100; Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v.
  Sowaran Singh, 12005] 7 Supreme 165; Surendranagar District Panchayat
D v. Dehyabhai Amarsingh, (2005} 7 Supreme 307; ONGC Ltd. and Anr. v.
  Shyamal Chandra Bhowmik, 12006J t SCC 337 and Chief Engineer, Ranjit
  Sagar Dam and Anr. v. Sham Lal, (2006) AIR SCW 3574, relied on.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3639 of2006.
E       From the Judgment and Order dated 2.8.2005 of the High Court of
    Kamataka at Bangalore, in Writ Appeal No. 1500 of 2005 (L-TER).
          Naveen R. Nath and Anitha Shenoy for the Appellant.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F         ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
          Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division
    Bench of the Karnataka High Court, Bangalore allowing the writ appeal filed
    by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'workman') and restoring the
    Award made by the Labour Court.
G         Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
                                                                                     >
          The workman had been working as a daily wage employee with the
    Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Limited (for short the 'Jala Nigam') which, at
    the relevant point of time was executing the Upper Krishna Project in the
H   State of Kamataka. His services were allegedly terminated which gave rise
    to an industrial dispute. According to the claim made by the workman he
        KRISHNA BHAGY AJALA NIGAM LTD. v. MOHAMMED RAFI [PASAYAT,J.]    307
served the Jala Nigam from 29. l 0.1989 to 1.4.1996. He further claimed that A
his services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section
25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short the Act). A reference
under Section 10(1) (c) of the Act was made to the Labour Court, Gulbarga.
Several other employees had also challenged the termination of their services
and other references had been made to the Labour Court and some of the
employees had also filed applications before it under sub-section (4-A) of B
Section I0 of the Act. The reference made at the instance of the workman
was contested by the Jala Nigam and on a consideration of the oral and
documentary evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court recorded a finding
that tt,e services of the workman had been terminated without complying
with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and therefore the termination C
was illegal. Accordingly the termination was set aside and the Jala Nigam
was directed to reinstate the workman with full back wages and continuity of
service. This award came to be challenged by the Jala Nigam in W.P.
No.40822/1999. This writ petition was heard along with the writ petitions
filed in the case of other workmen as well and all the writ petition were
disposed of by the learned single Judge by a common order. In the case of D
other workmen there was considerable delay in raising the industrial dispute
and therefore the learned single Judge non-suited them on that ground. In the
case of the workman the Labour Court observed that there had been no delay
but the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act had not been complied with and
therefore the termination was wrongful. The learned single Judge set aside E
the award of the Labour Court holding that there was no evidence before it
indicating that the workman had ever been in the service of the Jala Nigam.
According to the learned single Judge, the workman had not discharged the
initial onus of proving that he had worked for more than 240 days with the
Jaia Nigam and therefore the award directing his reinstatement was illegal.
The writ petition was allowed and the award of the Labour Court set aside. F
It is against this order of the learned single Judge that a writ appeal was filed
before the Division Bench. By the impugned judgment, the writ appeal was
allowed.

     Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the basic approach of G
the High Court is erroneous. It proceeded on the basis as if the period of
employment/engagement of a workman has to be established by the employer.
There is no appearance on behalf of the workman.

      In a large number of cases the position of law relating to the onus to
be discharged has been delineated. In Range Forest Officer v. S. T. Hadimani, H
    308                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A [2002] 3 sec 25, it was held as follows:
           "2. Jn 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
B          had not worked for 240 days. The Tribunal vide its award dated
            10.8.1998 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
c          workman was sufficient to prove that he had worked for 240 days in
           a year.

           3. For the view we are taking, 1t 1s 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.
D
           Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, [2001] 9 SCC 713. 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
E          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 Qf 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
F
           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 a!one, 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
G          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 said decision was followed in Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar, [2002]
    8 sec 400.
H
             KRISHNA BHAGYAJALA NIGAM LTD. r. MOHAMMED RAFI [PASAYAT,J.]      309

           In Rajas than State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and     A
     Anr., [2004) 8 SCC 161, the position was again reiterated in paragraph 6 as
     follows:

                "It was the case of the workman that he had worked for more
            than 240 days in the year concerned. This claim was denied by the
            appellant. It was for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had   B
            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 that in fact the claimant
            had worked for 240 days in a year. These aspects were highlighted         C
            in Range Forest Officer v. S. T. Hadimani, [2002) 3 SCC 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."
                                                                                      D
           In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas, [2004) 8 SCC 195,
     it was held that the burden was on the workman to show that he was working
     for qiore than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged
     retrenchment. In MP. Electricity Board v. Hariram, [2004) 8 SCC 246 the
     position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows:
                                                                                      E
            "The above burden having not been discharged and the Labour Court
            having held so, in our opinion, the Industrial Court and the High
            Court erred in basing an order of reinstatement solely on an adverse
            inference drawn erroneously. At this stage it _may be useful to refer
            to a judgment of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation,
            Faridabad v. Siri Niwas, JT (2004) 7 SC 248 wherein this Court            F
            disagreed with the High Court's view of drawing an adverse inference
            in regard to the non-production of certain relevant documents. This
·•          is -.yhat this Court had to say in that regard:

                "A court of law even in a case where provisions of the Indian
            Evidence Act apply, may presume or may not presume that if a party G
            despite possession of the best evidence had not produced the same,
            it would have gone against his contentions. The matter, however,
            would be different where despite direction by a court the evidence is
            withheld. Presumption as to adverse inference for non-production of
            evidence is always optional and one of the factors which is required H
    3 IO                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12006) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A          to be taken into consideration is the background of facts involwd in
           the lis. The presumption, thus, is not obligatory because
           notwithstanding the intentional non-production. other circumstances
           may exist upon which such intentional non-production may be found
           to be justifiable on some reasonable grounds. In the instant case, the
           Industrial Tribunal did not draw any adverse inference against the
B          appellant. It was within its jurisdiction to do so particularly having
           regard to the nature of the evidence adduced by the respondent."

        In Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani and Ors.,
  [2005] 5 SCC I00 a three-Judge Bench of this Court again considered the
C matter and held that the initial burden of proof was on the workman to show
  that he had completed 240 days of service. Tribunal's view that the burden
  was on the employer was held to be erroneous. In Batala Cooperative Sugar
  Mills Ltd. v. Sowaran Singh, (2005) 7 Supreme I65 it was held as follows:

           "So far as the question of onus regarding working for more than 240
D          days is concerned, as observed by this Court in Range Forest Officer
           v. S. T. Hadimani, [2002] 3 SCC 25 the onus is on the workman."

    The position was examined in detail in Surendranagar District Panchayat v.
    Dehyabhai Amarsingh, (2005) 7 Supreme 307 and the view expressed in
    Range Forest Officer, Siri Niwas, M.P. Electricity Board cases (supra) was
E   reiterated.

          In R.M. Yellatti v. The Asst. Executive Engineer, JT (2005) 9 SC 340,
    the decisions referred to above were noted and it was held as follows:

           "Analyzing the ·above decisions of this court, it is clear that the
F          provisions of the Evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings
           under section I0 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying
           general principles and on reading the aforestated judgments, we find
           that this court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof
           is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given
           year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in
G          the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing
           cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination
           of services of daily waged earner, there will be no letter of appointment
           or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment.
           Thus in most cases, the workman (claimant) can only call upon the
H          employer to produce before the court the nominal muster roll for the
             KRISHNABHAGYAJALANIGAMLTD.1·. MOHAMMED RAFI [PASAYAT,J.]           311
             given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the        A
             wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference
             ultimately would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The above
             decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self-serving
             statements made by the claimant/workman will not suffice in the
             matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to
             prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above           B
             judgments further lay down that mere non-production of muster rolls
             per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will
             not be the ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference against
             the management. Lastly, the above judgments lay down the basic
             principle, namely, that the High Court under Article 226 of the            C
             Constitution will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact
.:           recorded by the labour court unless they are perverse. This exercise
             will depend upon facts of each case."

          The above position was again re-iterated in ONGC Ltd and Anr. v.
     Shyamal Chandra Bhowmik, (2006] 1 SCC 337 and Chief Engineer, Ranjit               D
     Sagar Dam and Anr. v. Sham Lal, (2006) AIR SCW 3574.

          Above being the position, impugned order of the High Court cannot be
     maintained and is set aside.

            Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.                                    E
     N.J.                                                          Appeal allowed.