Rajasthan High Court, in Giriraj S/o Kanwarlal Suman vs. Regional Forest Officer & Anr. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1243/2016], rejected the employee’s claim that his termination was illegal due to the employer’s failure to follow the procedures laid down under Sections 35F, 25G, and 25H of the ID Act. The court held that it was the workman’s responsibility to prove he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding termination. It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Range Forest Officer vs. S.T. Hadimani [(2002) 3 SCC 25], which held that an affidavit alone is insufficient evidence. The workman must produce strong oral or documentary evidence, such as salary receipts or attendance records, to substantiate their claim. The court also referred to R.M. Yellati vs. Asst. Executive Engineer [(2006) 1 SCC 106], clarifying that while a workman can request the production of records (e.g., muster rolls, wage registers) from the employer, the mere non-production of such records does not automatically result in an adverse inference unless there is a plea of suppression by the employer. Consequently, the court held that the Labour Court’s findings were valid, and the workman’s termination was lawful.
Stay connected with us on social media platforms for instant updates click here to join our LinkedIn, Twitter & Facebook
