Daily Wager Must Prove 240 Days With Cogent Evidence: Supreme Court 2014 in BSNLv. Mahavir Singh Sets Aside Reinstatement for Lineman
The Supreme Court in BSNL v. Mahavir Singh held that burden to prove 240 dayscontinuous service in preceding 12 months under Section 25B ID Act lies on workman,and self-serving diaries without corroboration are insufficient. The Court on 03.01.2014set aside CGIT Chandigarh award of reinstatement with 50% back wages to daily wageLineman, granting Rs.50,000/- compensation instead. Respondent claimed he worked atSaidpur Exchange, Sonipat from Oct 2001 to Apr 2002, suffered electrical shock, andwas denied duty. BSNL denied employment, citing contract with M/s Haryana Securitiesfor security personnel. Practically, what we have seen is that Labour Courts drawadverse inference against employer for non-production of records even when workmanfails to discharge initial burden. Supreme Court said adverse inference arises only afterworkman proves prima facie case. This blog explains Range Forest Officer v. S.T.Hadimani (2002) 3 SCC 25, why R.M. Yellatti (2006) 1 SCC 106 distinguished, and whenBSNL v. Mahavir Singh permits compensation over reinstatement.
Facts: Lineman Claims Daily Wage Service 2001-2002, Produces Diaries, BSNL PleadsContract Labour via M/s Haryana Securities Mahavir Singh raised dispute in 2000 alleging termination. Claimed daily wageLineman at Saidpur Exchange, not paid wages Oct 2001-Apr 2002, suffered electricalshock, hospitalized, not allowed to resume. CGIT held termination illegal, awardedreinstatement + 50% back wages relying on diaries C-1 to C-14 and documents C-15 toC-40. BSNL pleaded no direct employment; agreement dated 18.01.2002 with M/sHaryana Securities for security personnel; respondent may have been contractemployee of contractor. The Supreme Court in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani(2002) 3 SCC 25 held burden to prove 240 days on workman; mere affidavit insufficient.The Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills v. State (2004) 8 SCC 161held adverse inference against employer not to be drawn unless workman leads cogentevidence. In BSNL, respondent produced personal diaries and some certificates. Noappointment letter, wage slip, PF/ESI. The Supreme Court in Surendranagar DistrictPanchayat v. Dahyabhai Amarsinh (2005) 8 SCC 750 held diaries maintained byworkman not conclusive. A common mistake clients make is relying on self-maderecords. BSNL says diaries not enough without employer records or co-worker evidence.For workmen, summon muster rolls. For employers, preserve contract agreements.Burden of Proof on Workman: Supreme Court Says Adverse Inference Under Section114(g) Evidence Act Not Automatic
Supreme Court held: “The initial burden of proof was on the workman to show thathe had completed 240 days of service. The burden was not discharged merely byproduction of diaries.” Court distinguished R.M. Yellatti v. Asst. Executive Engineer(2006) 1 SCC 106 where workman produced appointment letter and employer failed toproduce muster rolls despite direction. In BSNL, no appointment letter; only diaries. TheSupreme Court in Municipal Corpn., Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004) 8 SCC 195 heldadverse inference can be drawn only when employer fails to produce records afterworkman discharges initial burden. The Supreme Court in Manager, RBI Bangalore v. S.Mani (2005) 5 SCC 100 held self-serving statements not proof of 240 days. In BSNL,CGIT erred in drawing adverse inference without prima facie proof by workman. TheSupreme Court in Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. v. S.G. Kotturappa (2005) 3SCC 409 held contract labour cannot claim direct employment without lifting veil. Hereagreement with M/s Haryana Securities existed. In our experience, Labour Courtspresume employment from entry in premises. BSNL says proof needed. For workmen,get co-worker affidavits or contractor records. For PSUs, maintain contractoragreements and avoid direct supervision.
Compensation Instead of Reinstatement: Supreme Court Awards Rs.50,000/- for DailyWager After 12 Years
Even if termination illegal, Supreme Court applied BSNL v. Bhurumal (2013) 15SCALE 131: reinstatement not automatic for daily wagers, especially after long gap. TheSupreme Court in Senior Superintendent Telegraph v. Santosh Kumar Seal (2010) 6 SCC773 held compensation appropriate when reinstatement not practicable. The SupremeCourt in Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan Dev Corp v. Gitam Singh (2013) 5 SCC 136awarded Rs.50,000/- for 240 days violation after 8 years. In BSNL, alleged service Oct2001-Apr 2002, dispute raised 2000, judgment 2014 — 12+ years. No post exists. TheSupreme Court in Jagbir Singh v. Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (2009) 15SCC 327 held nature of appointment, length of service, delay relevant for relief. Courtgranted Rs.50,000/- compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages. TheSupreme Court in Hari Nandan Prasad v. FCI (2014) 7 SCC 190 reiterated compensationrule for casual workers. A common mistake clients make is seeking reinstatement afterdecade. BSNL says take money. For employers, plead long gap and daily wage status.For workmen, if service short, accept compensation.
BSNL v. Mahavir Singh establishes that 240 days proof daily wager burden of proofBSNL Mahavir Singh Supreme Court 2014 jurisprudence requires workman to prove 240days with cogent evidence; diaries insufficient. Supreme Court 03.01.2014 set asidereinstatement, applied Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002) 3 SCC 25, andawarded Rs.50,000/- compensation per BSNL v. Bhurumal (2013) 15 SCALE 131.
Adverse inference not automatic. As the law stands, daily wagers must prove service viaappointment letter, wage slips, or contractor records. For PSUs, maintain agreements toshow contract labour. For workmen, don’t rely on self-records. For Courts,compensation preferred after long delay. The Supreme Court’s ruling in BSNL clarifiesburden of proof and relief for casual workers.
