Holding

The workman must prove the 240‑day service; the termination was illegal but reinstatement was unsuitable, so compensation was awarded.

Summary

The Motilal Nehru Farmers Training Institute employed daily wagers for various project works such as bee‑farming. Their services were terminated on 28‑December‑1996 and they claimed they had worked for more than 240 days, invoking Section 6N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court, after drawing an adverse inference against the institute for not producing relevant records, held the termination illegal and ordered reinstatement with back wages. The Allahabad High Court set aside that award, holding that the burden of proof was wrongly placed on the employer and that the award was based on conjecture. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed that the workman bears the burden of proving the 240‑day service, but observed that reinstatement was inappropriate as the project had ceased, and instead awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000 to each appellant.

Issues considered

The burden of proof for establishing that a workman has worked 240 days in a year under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the termination of the daily wagers was illegal for non‑compliance with the condition precedent in Section 6N.
Whether reinstatement was an appropriate remedy given that the project for which the workmen were engaged had stopped.
Whether the Labour Court's award was based on surmise and conjecture, warranting its setting aside.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 25F
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 25F, s. 6N

Subjects

daily wagersindustrial disputeburden of proofterminationreinstatementcompensationUttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes ActSection 6Nproject workprovident fundadverse inference

Judgment

(2008] 4 S.C.R. 471

SITA RAM & ORS. A
II.
MOTi LAL NEHRU FARMERS TRAINING INSTITUTE
(Civil Appeal No. 1769 of 2008)
MARCH 5, 2008
B
[S.8. SINHA AND V. S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.]

Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 6 N -
Appointment of daily wagers on project work - Termination -
Industrial dispute - Employees claiming, having long service c
- Labour court calling for relevant documents from the
employer to prove the claim - Production of irrelevant
documents - Employees producing documents supporting
their claim - Labour court holding the termination as illegal
and directing reinstatement - High Court setting aside the
0
award - On appeal, held: Termination rightly held to be illegal
- Since the project for which the employees were employed,
has been stopped, order of reinstatement not correct -
Payment of adequate amount of compensation would
subserve the ends of justice.
E
Respondent-Institute was a research institute. Its
object t"Jas charitable. However, it also undertoo!t poultry
fClrmlng, Plsciculture, Bee-lteeping etc; by way of Vllrious
projects. Dllily wagers were appointed for these projects
on need bc:isis. When the services of the appellants were F.
stopped to be talten from December, 1996 they raised an
industriEI dispute claiming that they had been wor!dng
for a long time. Labour Court called for some documents
from the respondent-employer to show that the appellants
had been rJor!dng for a long time. Respondent produced G
only Attendance Register for December, 1996 and
attendtince shoet for year 1997. Appellants brought on
record various documents showirtg deduction of
Provident Fund pertaining to years 1992-93 and 1994-95.
471 H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 4 SC R

A Labour Court drawing an adverse inference against the
employer held that the appellants had worked for more
than 240 days and their termination was bad in law due to
non-compliance of condition precedent as envisaged .u/
s 6 N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court
B directed their reinstatement. In writ petition,. High Court
set aside the- award holding that burden of proof was
wrongly placed on the employer and that the award was
based on surmises and conjectures. Hence the present
appeal.
C Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 It would be on the workman to prove that
he had worked for two hundred and forty days in a year.
However, where both parties have adduced evidences,
in most of the cases, the question would be academic.
0
[Para 11] (477-E, F]
DGM Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd and Anr. vs.
llias Abdulrehman 2005 2 SCC 163; Range Forest Officer vs.
S. T Hadimani 2002 (3) SCC 25; R.M. Yellatti vs Asstt.
E Executive Engineer 2006 (1) SCC 106; State of Maharashtra
vs.' Dattatraya Digamber Birajdar 2007 (10) SCALE 442;
Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. vs. Jaivir Singh 2007
(11) SCALE 409 - referred to. ·
. 1.2 Appellants have brought on records atleast some
F documentary evidences to show that they have been
working at least for two years. ·even provident fund had
been deducted frorn their wages. Each of the appellant
examined himself before the Labour Court. They had
called for the requisite documents. The documents
G produced before the Labour Court were wholly irrelevant,
as the services. of the workman were terminated in
December•. 1~~6 itself. What was called for from them was
the documents for ttle period during which the appellants
claimed to have been working with the respondent. It
H appears from the records that, the wages were being paid
SITA RAM & ORS. v. MOTi LAL NEHRU FARMERS 473
TRAINING INSTITUTE

in a wage-sheet a·nd no pay slip used to be issued A
therefor. Appellants, thus, were not expected to produce ·
any pay slip. No exception therefore, can be taken to the
findings of the Labour Court. [Paras 14 and 15] [479-A-D]
1.3 It is evident that the respondents have withheld
. B
the best evidence; The wage sheet, the provident fund
. records and other documents were in their possession.
'They were statutorily required to maintain some
documents. It may be true that the Labour Court did not
·draw any adverse inference expressly, but whether such
an adverse inference has been drawn or not must be C
considered upon reading the entire Award. The High
Court, has wrongly opined that the award suffers from an
error of law and was otherwise based on surmises and
conjectures. [Para 16] [479-D-F]
1.4 There is distinction between the provisions of the D
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and U.P. Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 inasmuch as whereas in the former, the workman
has to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days
in the preceding 12 months of the date of his termination,
there is no such requirement in the case of latter. E
[Para 13] [478-G; 479-A]
· 2. Keeping in view the period during which the
services were rendered by the respondent, the fact that
the respondent had stopped its operation of bee-farming, F
and the services of the appellants were terminated in
December, 1996, it is not a fit case where the appellants
could have been directed to be re-instated in service. The
Industrial Court, though exercises a discretionary
jurisdiction, but such discretion is required to be exercised G
. judiciously. Relevant factors therefor,- were required to be
taken into consideration; the nature of appointment, the
· period ·Of appointment, the availability of the job etc.
should weigh with the court for determination of such an
issue. Payment of adequate amount of compensation in H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 4 S.C.R

A place of a direction to be re-instated in service in cases of • •
this nature would subserve the ends of justice. [Paras 18,
19 and 20] [479-G; 480-A, 8, C]
Jaipur Development Authority vs. Ramsahai and Anr.
2006 (11) SCC 684; Madhya Pradesh Administration vs.
8 Tribhuban 2007 (5) SCALE 397; Uttrancha/ Forest
Development Corporation vs. M. C. Joshi 2007 (3) SCALE 545
- relied on. .. '
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1769
c of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 24.03.2005 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allhabad in Writ Petition No.
54221 of 2002.

R.R. Kumar and Bharat Sangal for the Appellants.
D
L.N. Rao, Pratap Venugopal, Surekha Raman, Dileep
Poolakkot, Anshul Singh (for M/s. K.J. John & Co.) for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
S.8. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Respondent is a research institute. It imparts training to
farmers for facilitating improved agricultural production. For
imparting training, fees is not charged from the trainees. The
F trainees are also provided free lodge and boarding.
Respondent carries out its function under a deed of trust. It is a
subsidiary to Indian Farmers Fertilizers Corporation. Its object
is charitable. However, it is stated that the respondent institute
also undertaking Poultry Farming, Pisciculture, Cow-Shelter,
G Dairy Farming. Plantation, Bee-keeping work etc. These jobs
are undertaken by way of various projects. Daily wagers are
appointed for the said purposes. The employment of daily
wagers is a needbased one.
3. Appellants herein and in particular, some of them,
H
~
I
I
\,

SITA RAM & ORS. v. MOTi LAL. NEHRU FARMERS 475

. )'
TRAINING INSTITUTE [S.B. SINHA, J]

claimed to have been working with the respondent institute for A
a long time. Their services were not being taken from
28.12.1996. They raised an industrial dispute. The State of U.P.
in exercise of its power under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.
1947 referred the dispute for adjudication before the Presiding
Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Allahabad. B
4. Before the learned Labour Court, both parties adduced
, ~ their respective evidences. Some documents to show that the
appellants have been working for a long time were called for
from the respondents. Respondent produced only Attendance
Register for December, 1996 and attendance sheet for the year c
1997. Appellants examined themselves before the Labour Court.
They brought on records various documents to show that even
Provident Fund used to be deducted from their salary. They
produced provident fund receipts for the years 1992-93 and
1994-95. D
~
.. One Kamla Pati Dubey was examined on behalf of the
respondent. He joined the respondent institution in the year 1988.
A statement was made by him that the appellant had not worked
for 240 days. He, however, in the cross-examination admitted
that Muster Roll (Exhibit E-3) bears the signatures of gardener E
Sant Ram. He also admitted that bee farming used to be
undertaken by the respondents.
The Labour Court, having regard to the fact that the
+ respondent despite having been called upon to produce relevant F
• records failed/neglected to do so, drew an adverse inference
against it. It, furthermore, took into consideration the oral as also
the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the appe!lants
to hold that they have worked for a period of more than 240
days. As the condition precedent for terminating the services of
G
the appellants. as envisaged under Section 6N of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 tiad not been complied with, the
• said orders of termination of services were held to be bad in
iaw. Appellants, therefore, directed to be reinstated with 25 per
cent of the back wages by an Award dated 12A2002.
H
~ ~ -

476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R

A 5. Respondent having aggrieved by and dissatisfied --1
•
therewith filed a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court.
By reason of the impugned judgment. the High Court set aside
the award of the Labour Court inter alia opining that the burden
of proof had wrongly been placed on the respondent, It was held;
B "It has consistently now been held by the court that the
burden of proof is on the employee who claims relief. In
spite of having been granted opportunity to discharge their ~
'
burden of proof by secondary evidence, it was not
discharged by them. It is admitted to the parties that the
c workmen were daily wagers. It is the nature of appointment
that is of essence and not the mode of payment. .. "

It was furthermore, observed that the Award was based
on surmises and conjectures.

D 6. Appellants, are, thus before us.

A limited notice, as to why the respondent should not be ~

asked to pay adequate compensation to the appellants, was
issued by this Court.

E 7. Mr. R.R. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant would submit that the High Court committed a
serious error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that
before the learned Labour Court, appellants have discharged
their initial burden and as the respondents despite having been
F asked to produce the relevant records, failed to do so, the onus
;.
~
of proof was rightly shifted to them. It was urged that the
provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 vis-a-vis Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, are
not in pari-materia inasmuch as in the former case, it was not
necessary to work for 240 days in 12 calendar months
G
preceding the date of alleged termination.
The High Court, it was contended, could not and did not
t
consider the evidences adduced on behalf of the parties and
wrongly exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
H Constitution of India. It was pointed out that the provident fund
SITA RAM & ORS. v MOTi LAL NEHRU FARMERS 477
TRAINING INSTITUTE [S.S. SINHA, J.]

receipts being Exhibits W-1 to 24 had even r.ot been A
controverted by the respondents.
8. Mr. L..N. Rao, the learned senior counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent lnst:tute. on the other hand urged that
the Labour Court had wrongly placed the burden of proof on the
respondent as the entire burden of proof to establish that they 8
had worked for more than 240 days in a year was on the
appellants and, thus, there was no requirement to produce the
records. in any event, it was submitted, the Labour Court having
not drawn any adverse inference against the respondent and
having allowed the appellant to lead secondary evidence, the C
judgment of the High Court cannot be faulted with.
9. Indisputably, the services of the appellants were
terminated as far back on 28.12.1996. The reference was made
in the year 1998. It furthermore appears from the evidence of
0
EW-1 that the respondent had stopped undertaking the job of
• bee farming.
10. Although a contention had been raised by the
respondent that it is not an "industry" within the meaning of
Section 2(k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. but the E
said point having been given up before the High Court, we need
not deal therewith.

11. The question as to whether the burden of proof was on
the employer or on the workman is no longer res-integra. It would
be on the workman to prove that he had worked for two hundred F
and forty days in a year. However, where both parties have
adduced evidences, in most of the cases, the question would
be academic.

In OGM Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and Another G
Vs. llias Abdulrehman a2005) 2 SCC 183], it was held;
, "8. A perusal of the evidence adduced by the workman
himself shows that he went in search of employment to
different places and whenever there was a temporary
employment available in different departments of the H
~ D

478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R.

A appellant Corporation, be it field work or the work in the • .
Chemistry Department, he accepted the employment and
worked in these departments not in one place alone but
at different places like Baroda and Mehsana. It has come
on record that the management did try to accommodate
B the appellant in a permanent job but could not do so
because of lack of qualifications. In such circumstances
we think that the Industrial Tribunal was justified in coming
~
· t6 the conclusion that the number of days of work put in by '
the respondent in broken periods, cannot be taken as a
c continuous employment for the purpose of Section 25-F
of the Act, as has been held by this Court in the case of
Indian Cable Co. Ltd. We are aware that the judgment of
this Court in Indian Cable Co. Ltd. was rendered in the
context of Section 25-G of the Act, still we are of the opinion
that the law for the purpose of counting the days of work
D
in different departments controlled by an apex corporation
will be governed by the principles laid down in the judgment ...
of Indian Cable Co. Ltd. and the Industrial Tribunal was
justified in dismissing the reference."

E See also Range Forest Officer Vs. S. T Hadimani [(2002)
3 SCC 25, para 3), R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer
[(2006) 1 SCC 106], State of Maharashtra Vs. Dattatraya
Digamber Birajdar [2007 10 SCALE 442, para 6], Ganga Kisan
Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Vs. Jaivir Singh [2007 11 SCALE 409,
F para 12} • ..
12. Although at .one point of time, the burden of proof used
to be placed on the employer, in view of a catena of recent
decisions, it must be held that the burden of proof is on the
workman to show that he has completed 240 days in a year.
G
13. We are, however, not oblivious of the distinction
between the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and '
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inasmuch as whereas in the t

former, the workman has to prove that he has worked for more
than 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date of his
H
' ~
" SITA RAM & ORS. v. MOTi LAL NEHRU FARMERS 479
TRAINING INSTITUTE [S.B. SINHA, J.]

termination, there is no such requirement in the case of latter. A
.. ~

14. Appellants have brought on records atleast some
documentary evidences to show that they have been working at
least for two years. Even provident fund had been deducted
from their wages. Each of the appellant examined himself before
the Labour Court. They had called for the requisite documents. B
The documents produced before the Labour Court were wholly
irrelevant, as the services of the workman were terminated in
; ~ December, 1996 itself. What was called for from them was the
documents for the period during which the appellants claimed
to have been working with the respondent. c
15. It furthermore appears from the records that, the wages
were being p.aid in a wage-sheet and no pay slip used to be
issued therefor. Appellants, thus, were not expected to produce
any pay slip. No exception therefore, can be taken to the findings
D
of the Labour Court.

• .. 16. It is evident that the respondents have withheld the best
evidence The wage sheet, the provident fund records and other
documents were in their possession. They were statutorily
required to maintain some documents. It may be true that the E
learned Labour Court did not draw any adverse inference
expressly, but whether such an adverse inference has been
drawn or not must be considered upon reading the entire Award.
The High Court, in our opinion, has wrongly opined that the award
suffers from an error of law and was otherwise based on F
surmises and conjectures.
' ,.
17. The question, which, however, falls for our consideration
is as to whether the Labour Court was justified in awarding re-
instatement of the appellants in service.
G
18. Keeping in view the period during which the services
were rendered by the respondent; the fact that the respondent
, had stopped its operation of bee-farming, and the services of
1 the appellants were terminated in December, 1996, we are of
the opinion that it is not a fit case where the appellants could
H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
' D
[2008) 4 S.C.R. L

A have been directed to be re-instated in service.
1 ..
19. Indisputably, the Industrial Court, exercises a
discretionary jurisdiction, but such discretion is required to be
exercised judiciously. Relevant factors therefor, were required
to be taken into consideration; the nature of appointment, the
B period of appointment, the availability of the job etc. should
weigh with the court for determination of such an issue.

20. This Court in a large nu111ber of decisions opined that ~ •
payment of adequate amount of compensation in place of a
c direction to be re-instated in service in cases of this nature would
subserve the ends of justice. {See Jaipur Development
Authority Vs. Ramsahai and Anr. [(2006) 11 SCC 684],
Madhya Pradesh Administration Vs. Tribhuban [2007 (5)
SCALE 397] and Uttrancha/ Forest Development Corporation
Vs. M.C. Joshi [2007 (3) SCALE 545].}
D
21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this
case, we are of the opinion that payment of a sum of Rs.
..,.
1,00,000/- to each of the appellant, would meet the ends of
justice. These appeals are allowed to the aforementioned extent.
E In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no
order as to costs.

K.K.T. Appeal partly allowed.

.'

·'