Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. Mohammed Rafi (SC) BS204163
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Gansuly, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 2895 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 24529 of 2005). D/d. 28.4.2009.

Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. - Appellant

Versus

Mohammed Rafi - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Naveen R. Nath, Advocate.

For the Respondent :- M/s R.V. Naik, R.R. Naik, R.K. Gupta, S.K. Tondon and Pritam Shah (for Rameshwar Prasad), Advocates.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25F - Termination of Services - Burden of proof as to completion of 240 days of continuous work in a year lies on the aggrieved workman.

[Para 8]

Cases Referred :-

Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Sowaran Singh, 2006(1) S.C.T. 539 : 2005 (7) Supreme 165.

Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam v. Sham Lal, 2006(3) S.C.T. 468 : 2006 AIR SCW 3574.

Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar, 2002(4) S.C.T. 900 : 2002 (8) SCC 400.

M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram, 2004(4) S.C.T. 482 : 2004 (8) SCC 246.

Manager Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani, 2005(2) S.C.T. 404 : 2005(5) SCC 100.

Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas, 2004(4) S.C.T. 211 : 2004 (8) SCC 195 : JT 2004 (7) SC 248.

ONGC Ltd. v. Shyamal Chandra Bhowmik, 2005(4) S.C.T. 838 : 2006 (1) SCC 337.

R.M. Yellatti v. Asst. Executive Engineer, 2005(4) S.C.T. 695 : JT 2005 (9) SC 340.

Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 2004(4) S.C.T. 214 : 2004 (8) SCC 161.

Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, 2002(3) S.C.T. 382 : 2002 (3) SCC 25.

State of Gujarat v. Pratamsingh Narsinh Parmar, 2001(2) S.C.T. 1081 : (2001) 9 SCC 713.

Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Dehyabhai Amarsingh, 2005 (7) Supreme 307.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. - Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowing the writ appeal filed by the respondent. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench set aside the order passed by a learned Single Judge and the award made by the Labour Court.

3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows :-

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the basic approach of 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.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman supported the judgment of the High Court.

6. 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, 2002(3) S.C.T. 382 : 2002 (3) SCC 25, it was held as follows :-

7. The said decision was followed in Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar, 2002(4) S.C.T. 900 : 2002 (8) SCC 400.

8. In Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., 2004(4) S.C.T. 214 : 2004 (8) SCC 161, the position was again reiterated in paragraph 6 as follows :-

9. In Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas, 2004(4) S.C.T. 211 : 2004 (8) SCC 195, it was held that the burden was on the workman to show that he was working for more than 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment. In M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram, 2004(4) S.C.T. 482 : 2004 (8) SCC 246 the position was again reiterated in paragraph 11 as follows :-

10. In Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani and Ors., 2005(2) S.C.T. 404 : 2005(5) SCC 100 a three-Judge Bench of this Court again considered the 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, 2006(1) S.C.T. 539 : 2005 (7) Supreme 165 it was held as follows :-

11. In R.M. Yellatti v. The Asst. Executive Engineer, 2005(4) S.C.T. 695 : JT 2005 (9) SC 340, the decisions referred to above were noted and it was held as follows :-

12. The above position was again re-iterated in ONGC Ltd. and Anr. v. Shyamal Chandra Bhowmik, 2005(4) S.C.T. 838 : 2006 (1) SCC 337 and Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam and Anr. v. Sham Lal, 2006(3) S.C.T. 468 : 2006 AIR SCW 3574.

13. Appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.