Is It Fair for Workmen to Prove 240 Days of Service Before Termination? Rajasthan HC's Take on Employer Records

Working for 240 Days: Workmen Should Prove, Not the Employer; Rajasthan HC Upholds Workman's Termination

20 Dec 2024 12:30 PM

Why is Termination Simpliciter Applied Within 240 Days of Dismissal?

Are there any valid reasons for termination simpliciter being applied within 240 days of dismissal? How many employers provide records to employees after litigation starts?

No other supportive evidence or record has been produced by the petitioner, nor any efforts were made to summon the record, muster roll register, attendance register, wages register, etc., from the respondents. Hence, in such circumstances, the plea of counsel for the petitioner to draw an adverse inference against the respondent for non-production of the record cannot be accepted.

VOIP - Voice of Information Technology Professionals [Phone Number Removed For Privacy-Reasons]

A single-judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising Justice Sudesh Bansal held that an adverse inference can't be drawn against the employer for the non-production of the record against the workman's service period. It is upon the workman to prove their service period of 240 days preceding the termination of service.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the onus to prove his case lies upon the workman. Further, the workman did not produce any supportive evidence or record to prove his working for 240 days in a year. It was observed by the court that since the workman has only produced his self-serving affidavit in support of his claim, which too has been countered from the side of respondents. No other supportive evidence or record has been produced by the petitioner, nor any efforts were made to summon the record, muster roll register, attendance register, wages register, etc., from the respondents.

Therefore, it was held by the court that an adverse inference cannot be drawn against the respondent for the non-production of the record. It was further held by the court that the findings of the Labour Court were based on the appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the impugned order was not interfered with by the High Court.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1243/2016

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ritesh Kumawat for Abdul Kalam Khan

Counsel for the Respondents: N/A

Click Here To Read/Download The Order

https://www.livelaw.in/labour-servic...ination-278952

https://www.facebook.com/share/WuXzxCFmikEmUak8/

To your first query, termination simpliciter refers to simple termination without assigning any reason. It is commonly used within 240 days of dismissal because, under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, an employee who has been in service for 240 days or more cannot be terminated without a valid reason. If the termination occurs within 240 days, the burden of proof is less stringent, and the employer does not need to provide a substantial reason for termination.

As for your second query, the reasons for applying termination simpliciter within 240 days can vary. It could be due to a variety of reasons such as performance issues, restructuring, or economic reasons. The key point is that within this period, the employer does not need to provide a substantial reason for termination.

Regarding your third question, the number of employers who provide records to employees after litigation starts can vary greatly. It depends on the company's policies, the nature of the litigation, and the relevant laws and regulations. However, in the case you provided, the court held that the burden of proof lies with the employee, not the employer.

To summarize:
1. Termination simpliciter is often applied within 240 days of dismissal as the employer does not need to provide a substantial reason for termination during this period.
2. The reasons for termination simpliciter can vary widely - from performance issues to business restructuring.
3. The number of employers providing records post-litigation can vary depending on various factors.
4. In the provided case, the court held that the employee, not the employer, has the burden to provide proof of their service period.

Always remember, it's crucial for employees to maintain their own records of employment, including pay slips, contracts, and any other relevant documentation, to safeguard their rights.