Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Siemens Ltd., challenged an award dated 2nd November 2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Aurangabad in Reference (IT) No. 08 of 2014. The Tribunal had held that the petitioner employed more than 100 workmen, making Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applicable, and declared the closure notice dated 27th September 2014 illegal, setting aside termination of employees and directing payment of wages with continuity of service. The petitioner contended it had only 99 workmen and thus no prior permission under Section 25-O was required. The respondent union claimed 8-9 additional employees were workmen. The Tribunal found that the petitioner failed to rebut the union's claim and inferred that some of those employees were workmen, concluding that the total exceeded 100. The High Court held that the burden of proving workman status rested on the union, not the employer. The Tribunal's approach of shifting the burden was erroneous. Consequently, the impugned award was set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, with the union to lead evidence first to prove that the additional employees were workmen. The petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Burden of Proof - Workman Status - Section 25-O, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The burden of proving that additional employees are workmen lies on the party asserting it, i.e., the union. The Tribunal erred by shifting the burden to the employer to disprove the union's claim. Held that the Tribunal's finding of more than 100 workmen was based on incorrect burden of proof and could not be sustained (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal correctly placed the burden of proof on the employer to disprove that certain employees were workmen, and whether the finding that more than 100 workmen were employed was sustainable.
Final Decision
The impugned award dated 02nd November, 2018 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Industrial Tribunal, Aurangabad for fresh consideration. The respondent union shall lead evidence first to prove that the additional employees are workmen. The petition is allowed. Rule made absolute.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Workman status
- Closure
- Section 25-O
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Chapter VB
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (11) 36
WRIT PETITION NO. 5290 OF 2019
Shri Sudhir Talsania, Senior Advocate i/by Shri Y. R. Marlapalle, Advocate for the Petitioner; Shri B. R. Kaware, Advocate for the Respondent
Shendra Siemens Kamgar/Karmachari Sanghatana
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an award of the Industrial Tribunal regarding closure of an industrial establishment.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the Tribunal's award which declared closure illegal and directed payment of wages.
Filing Reason
The Tribunal held that the petitioner had more than 100 workmen, making Chapter VB applicable, and that closure without prior permission under Section 25-O was illegal.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Tribunal passed award dated 02nd November, 2018 in Reference (IT) No. 08 of 2014.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Tribunal correctly placed the burden of proof on the employer to disprove that certain employees were workmen.
Whether the finding that more than 100 workmen were employed was sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the burden of proving that 8-9 additional employees were workmen rested on the union, and the Tribunal wrongly shifted the burden to the employer.
Respondent union contended that the company had more than 100 workmen and closure without prior permission was void.
Ratio Decidendi
The burden of proving that an employee is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act lies on the party asserting it. The Tribunal cannot shift this burden to the employer merely because the employer fails to rebut the claim. The finding of more than 100 workmen based on incorrect burden of proof is unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
the Tribunal put entire burden of disproving the contention of the respondent union on petitioner.
the Tribunal has proceeded to draw an inference that some of the said 09 employees fall within the workman category.
Procedural History
The respondent union raised an industrial dispute regarding closure. The matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Aurangabad as Reference (IT) No. 08 of 2014. The Tribunal passed an award on 02nd November, 2018 in favor of the union. The petitioner challenged the award by filing Writ Petition No. 5290 of 2019 before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and decided on 14th November, 2022.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 25-O, 25FF, 25-FFF, Chapter VB
