Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sakhawat Ibrahim Naik, filed a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 06.06.2016 passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai in Complaint (ULP) No. 330 of 2015. The petitioner claimed that he was employed as a wireman with the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (respondent) and was illegally terminated from service on 31.01.2008. He sought reinstatement as a wireman with continuity of service and back wages. The respondent Corporation contended that the petitioner was employed as a helper and not a wireman, and his termination was in accordance with the settlement between the parties which provided for retrenchment on the principle of 'last come first go'. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint holding that the petitioner failed to prove that he was a wireman and that his termination was justified. The High Court examined the evidence on record, including the appointment letter and wage slips, which indicated that the petitioner was appointed as a helper. The petitioner did not produce any document to show that he was ever designated as a wireman. The High Court held that the Industrial Court's finding was based on evidence and was not perverse. The Court further held that the termination was in accordance with the settlement and the principle of last come first go. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reinstatement - Burden of Proof - The employee must prove his designation and continuous service - The petitioner claimed to be a wireman but failed to produce sufficient evidence such as appointment letter or wage slips showing designation as wireman - The Industrial Court held that the petitioner was a helper and not a wireman - The High Court upheld the finding as it was based on evidence (Paras 5-8). B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Retrenchment - Last Come First Go - The respondent Corporation terminated the petitioner as per the settlement which provided for retrenchment on the principle of last come first go - The petitioner being the last recruited helper was retrenched - The Industrial Court found the termination justified - The High Court affirmed (Paras 9-10). C) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of interference - The High Court in writ jurisdiction does not sit as an appellate court over findings of fact - It can only interfere if the finding is perverse or based on no evidence - The Industrial Court's finding that the petitioner was a helper was based on evidence and not perverse - Hence no interference (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint of the petitioner seeking reinstatement as a wireman with continuity of service and back wages.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. Industrial Court's order upheld.
Law Points
- Burden of proof lies on employee to establish designation
- Termination based on last come first go principle under settlement
- Writ court cannot re-appreciate evidence
