(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the judgment and award dtd. 8/7/2008 in Reference (LCA) No. 50 of 2001 by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amreli by which the respondent-workman was ordered to be reinstated with 20% back-wages. The contention raised by the petitioner is two fold, firstly that the Labour Court has committed an error in shifting the burden upon the Nagarpalika (Employer) to hold that the workman has established to have worked for 240 days with the Nagarpalika before his services were orally terminated. The other argument is that in case where the employer is a Nagarpalika, the provision of Sec. 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") will not be attracted.
(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Y.V. Shah appearing for the petitioner submitted that it was for the workman to discharge the initial burden of having been under the service of Nagarpalika and thereafter, only the burden could have been shifted upon the Nagarpalika to produce evidence to disprove the fact of having worked continuously for a period of 240 days with the Nagarpalika. Learned advocate has taken this Court through the findings of the Labour Court to the extent that no evidence worth the name has been produced by the workman to establish his case of having worked continuously for 240 days. 2.1. Learned advocate relied upon the reported decision in case of Ranip Nagarpalika v. Babuji Gabhaji Thakore and others, reported in 2008 AIR SCW 449 to substantiate his argument.
(3.) As against this, learned advocate Ms. Abha Makwana appearing for the respondent-workman has submitted that during the course of the proceedings before the Labour Court, the workman was examined and during the course of deposition, the evidence was adduced to the extent of the respondent-workman having joined the services of petitioner Nagarpalika on 12/3/1997 and had continuously worked till the date of his oral termination on 8/2/2000. It is submitted that the workman had also filed an application, calling upon the petitioner Nagarpalika to place on record the attendance sheet and other evidences available with the Nagarpalika so as to place before the Labour Court the status of the working days that the respondent-workman had in the Nagarpalika. However, despite the order passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner Nagarpalika was unable to produce any evidence in this regard and therefore, the Labour Court was justified in drawing adverse inference in so far as continuous working of the respondent-workman with the Nagarpalika is concerned. Learned advocate has also submitted that the Labour Court has appreciated the arguments of the workman that despite the respondent-workman being senior, the other persons who are juniors to him have continued in the services of the petitioner-Nagarpalika and in fact subsequently advertisements have been issued by which new persons were also employed as workmen with the Nagarpalika.