Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by a casual worker against the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC) regarding his claim for regularization of service. The respondent claimed to have worked continuously since November 1982, with intermittent layoffs, and asserted that he had worked for more than 240 days in the years 1989-90 and 1990-91. His request for regularization was denied, leading to the writ petition. The learned Single Judge of the Guwahati High Court ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that he had acquired the right not to be terminated without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal by ONGC, primarily on the grounds that ONGC failed to prove the respondent had not worked for 240 days and that the respondent was not a union member. ONGC contended that the burden of proof lay with the respondent to establish his claim of working for more than 240 days. The Supreme Court analyzed the legal principles surrounding the burden of proof in employment disputes, referencing several precedents. It concluded that the High Court had erred in its judgment by not properly considering the evidence and the legal standards applicable. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed that the matter be referred to the appropriate Tribunal for adjudication, emphasizing that the determination of whether the respondent had worked for more than 240 days was a disputed question of fact that should be resolved through proper evidence. The court ordered the government to make a reference to the Tribunal within two months and for the Tribunal to dispose of the matter within six months, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Employment Law - Burden of Proof - Initial burden lies on workman to prove service duration - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25-F - The court held that the workman must establish he worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding termination, as the burden of proof lies with him. The High Court's approach was erroneous in shifting this burden to the employer (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent had worked for more than 240 days and if the settlement was binding on him.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and directed that the matter be referred to the appropriate Tribunal for adjudication within two months, with a directive for the Tribunal to dispose of the reference within six months.
Law Points
- burden of proof
- retrenchment compensation
- industrial disputes
- employment rights
- regularization of service
