THE RANGE FOREST OFFICERversusS.T. HADIMANI
- Citation
- 2002 INSC 85
- Decided
- 15 February 2002
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
An affidavit alone does not constitute sufficient evidence of having worked 240 days; the claimant must produce cogent proof, and the Tribunal erred in placing the burden on the employer without such proof.
Summary
The workman, S.T. Hadimani, claimed that he had rendered service for 240 days in the relevant year and that his employment was terminated without payment of retrenchment compensation. The employer, the Range Forest Officer, denied that the workman had completed the requisite 240 days. The Labour Tribunal accepted the workman's affidavit as proof of the 240 days and placed the burden on the employer to justify the termination, awarding compensation to the workman. On appeal, the Court held that an affidavit alone is insufficient evidence and that the Tribunal erred in shifting the burden of proof without first establishing the workman's claim on cogent evidence. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's award, directing that the employer's appeal be allowed. The State indicated it would re-employ the workman on compassionate grounds within two months.
Issues considered
- Whether an affidavit filed by a workman is sufficient proof that he has worked for 240 days in a year for the purpose of claiming retrenchment compensation.
- Who bears the burden of proof to establish the number of days worked when the employer disputes the workman's claim.
Subjects
Judgment
A THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER
V.
S.T. HADIMANI
B
FEBRUARY 15, 2002
[B.N. KIRPAL AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]
--
labour law:
Workman-· Termination of services-Claim of workman that he had
C worked for 240 days in the relevant year and his services were terminated
without paying him any retrenchment compensation-Management denying
that workman had worked for 240 days· -Tribunal holding that services of
workman were terminated without giving retrenchment compensation and that
affidavit of workman was sufficient to prove that he had worked for 240 days
D in a year and burden was on Management to justiJY the termination-Held,
Tribunal was not right in placing onus on Management without first determining
on the basis of cogent evidence that workman had worked for more than 240
days in the year preceding his termination-The claim of workman having
been denied by Management, it was for workman to show that he had worked
for 240 days- In the absence of any documentary proof mere statement in the
E affidavit can not be regarded as sufficient evidence-Burden of proof
State of <Jujarat v. Pratam Singh Narsinh Parmar, JT (2001) 3 SC
326, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1283 of
F 2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.1999 of the Karnataka High
Court in W.A. No. 3962 of 1999.
WITH
G C.A. No. 1284 of 2002.
Sanjay R. Hegde for the Appellant.
Mohan V. Katarki and Ashok Kumar Sharma for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
H 1080
\
k
RANGE FOREST OFFICER v. S.T. HADIMANI 1081
Leave granted. A
.a 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 w9rked for 240
days. The Tribunal vide its award dated I 0th August, 1998, came to the B
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.
c
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 D
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 E
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 F
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. G
. R.P . Appeals disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.