240 Days' Continuous Work Proof Mandatory for Daily Wagers' Permanency Under Maharashtra GR : Bombay HC (Aurangabad Bench)

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a complaint seeking permanency for a daily wager, reinforcing that proof of 240 days' continuous work in a calendar year is essential to claim benefits under the Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996. The judgment underscores the burden on employees to substantiate their service claims with documentary evidence, particularly muster rolls, to establish eligibility for permanency and consequential benefits.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, a 64-year-old daily wager, claimed to have worked as a Forest Guard with the Van Vibhag (Forest Department) since 01.07.2000. He alleged that despite performing duties such as protecting trees, cutting grass, and plantation work, he was denied permanency and consequential benefits, while other permanent labourers were granted such benefits. The petitioner contended that the respondents engaged in unfair labour practice and favouritism, leading to his complaint before the Industrial Court, Latur.

Key Facts

• The petitioner was engaged as a daily wager on 01.07.2000 at the Range Forest Office, Omerga.
• His duties included protecting trees, cutting grass, digging pits, and plantation work.
• He alleged that his salary was withheld from September 2018 and that he was not permitted to sign the muster roll.
• The petitioner relied on an Identity Card issued by the respondents, though its authenticity was disputed.
• He claimed to have worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year since 2000, entitling him to permanency under the Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996.
• The petitioner produced bank passbook entries showing payments under the head "Forest Labour Payment" for Rs. 15,417 (25.04.2017) and Rs. 8,017 (16.03.2018).

Procedural History

• Complaint (ULP) No. 253 of 2018: Filed before the Industrial Court, Latur, seeking permanency and consequential benefits.
• 03.05.2024: Industrial Court dismissed the complaint, holding that the petitioner failed to prove 240 days' continuous work in any calendar year.
• WP No. 9594 of 2024: Filed before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, impugning the Industrial Court's order.
• 22.06.2026: High Court dismissed the writ petition.

The Parties' Positions

Petitioner's Contentions

• The Identity Card issued by the respondents proved his appointment as a Forest Guard.
• He had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year since 01.07.2000, entitling him to permanency under the Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996.
• His wages were withheld from September 2018, and he was denied access to the muster roll.
• The respondents engaged in unfair labour practice by granting permanency to other workers while denying it to him.

Respondents' Contentions

• There was no post designated as Forest Guard in the department, and the petitioner was engaged on a contractual basis.
• The Identity Card relied upon by the petitioner was not issued by a competent authority and lacked authenticity.
• No muster roll was maintained, and the petitioner failed to prove 240 days' continuous work in any calendar year.
• The bank entries produced by the petitioner were insufficient to establish employment with the respondents.
• The petitioner was not entitled to permanency or consequential benefits.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

• Permanency in service with effect from 01.07.2000.
• Consequential benefits, including salary arrears and pension.
• Quashing of the Industrial Court's order dated 03.05.2024.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the petitioner was entitled to permanency and consequential benefits under the Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996, given that he claimed to have worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year since 01.07.2000, but failed to produce documentary evidence to substantiate his claim.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• Relied on the Identity Card issued by the respondents to prove his appointment as a Forest Guard.
• Argued that he had continuously worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year since 01.07.2000, entitling him to permanency under the Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996.
• Contended that the respondents engaged in unfair labour practice by denying him permanency while granting it to others.

For the Respondents

• Argued that the Identity Card was not issued by a competent authority and lacked authenticity.
• Contended that the petitioner failed to prove 240 days' continuous work in any calendar year due to the absence of muster rolls or documentary evidence.
• Submitted that the bank entries produced by the petitioner were insufficient to establish employment with the respondents.
• Denied any unfair labour practice and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the evidence and findings of the Industrial Court in detail:

1. Proof of 240 Days' Continuous Work:

   • The petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence, such as muster rolls, to prove that he had worked continuously for 240 days in any calendar year since 01.07.2000.
   • The Court observed that the petitioner did not issue any notice to the respondents calling upon them to produce relevant documents.
   • The Industrial Court's finding that the petitioner miserably failed to prove his claim was upheld.

2. Government Resolution Dated 31.01.1996:

   • The Court noted that under the Government Resolution, permanency was conferred only upon workers who had continuously worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year for a period of five years.
   • Since the petitioner failed to establish 240 days' continuous work, he was not entitled to permanency under the resolution.

3. Authenticity of the Identity Card:

   • The Identity Card (Exhibit U-34) produced by the petitioner did not bear a date, seal, or signature of a competent authority.
   • The petitioner admitted that the respondents took back the Identity Card for verification, raising suspicion about its authenticity.
   • The Court held that solely on the basis of a suspicious Identity Card, the petitioner could not be deemed an employee of the respondents.

4. Bank Entries:

   • The bank passbook entries showed payments under the head "Forest Labour Payment" for Rs. 15,417 (25.04.2017) and Rs. 8,017 (16.03.2018).
   • However, the Court observed that these entries were insufficient to establish employment with the respondents, as no document connected the payments to the respondents.
   • The payments were linked to the MGNREGA scheme, and the petitioner failed to prove that the respondents paid his wages.

5. Overall Evidence Appreciation:

   • The Court held that the Industrial Court's findings were based on cogent reasons and evidence on record.
   • The petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish his claim for permanency.
   • The impugned judgment was neither perverse nor erroneous, and thus, no interference was warranted.

"The learned Industrial Court considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and assigned cogent reasons in support of its findings. Nothing is shown that the findings or observations recorded in the impugned Judgment are perverse or erroneous. In the circumstances, no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment and Order."

The Verdict

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 03.05.2024. The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove 240 days' continuous work in any calendar year, and thus, was not entitled to permanency or consequential benefits under the Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Documentary Evidence Is Mandatory for Service Claims

• Muster rolls and appointment orders are critical to prove continuous service of 240 days or more in a calendar year.
• Employees must issue notices to employers calling for production of relevant documents if they are withheld.
• Bank entries alone are insufficient to establish employment unless linked to the employer through documentary proof.

Identity Cards Must Be Issued by Competent Authority

• Identity Cards must bear dates, seals, and signatures of competent authorities to be considered valid evidence.
• Suspicious or unverified Identity Cards cannot be relied upon to prove employment.

Government Resolutions Have Strict Eligibility Criteria

• Permanency under Government Resolutions requires strict compliance with eligibility conditions, such as 240 days' continuous work for five years.
• Employees must substantiate their claims with documentary evidence to avail benefits under such resolutions.