Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Group Four Security Services India Pvt. Ltd., a security agency, challenged the judgment and award dated 27/08/2018 passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad in Ref.(IDA) No.10/2012. The Labour Court had answered the reference partly in favour of the workmen, Arvind Dayanand Kharat and Ashok Shyamrao Hire, who were employed as Security Inspectors. They claimed to have joined service on 13/10/1997 and 28/02/2003 respectively, and were orally terminated on 01/06/2010. Their last drawn wages were Rs.6,368/- per month. They raised an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 16/12/2011. The dispute was admitted in conciliation on 07/03/2012, but the employer did not remain present for a single hearing, leading to a failure report on 19/03/2012 and reference to the Labour Court. The Union filed its statement of claim on 17/02/2014, and the petitioner filed its written statement on 25/07/2014. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence, held that the termination was illegal and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement. The petitioner contended that the workmen had abandoned service and that the dispute was belated. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the Labour Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the employer had failed to lead any evidence to rebut the workmen's case. The Court held that the award did not warrant interference and dismissed the writ petition. The Court also noted that the employer had not participated in conciliation and had not led evidence before the Labour Court, leading to an adverse inference. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Reinstatement and Back Wages - Section 11-A, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Labour Court's discretion to grant reinstatement with back wages - Employer failed to lead evidence and did not participate in conciliation - Held that the Labour Court's award granting reinstatement with 50% back wages was justified and did not warrant interference (Paras 1-10). B) Industrial Law - Burden of Proof - Section 25-F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Termination of workmen - Employer failed to prove that workmen abandoned service or that termination was legal - Held that the Labour Court correctly drew adverse inference against the employer for not leading evidence (Paras 5-8). C) Industrial Law - Delay in Raising Dispute - Section 2(k), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Workmen raised dispute after 18 months - Held that delay was not fatal as the employer did not participate in conciliation and the Labour Court considered the facts (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court was justified in ordering reinstatement with 50% back wages in favour of the workmen despite the employer's contention that they had abandoned service and that the dispute was belated.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Labour Court's award of reinstatement with 50% back wages. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 2(k)
- Section 10
- Section 11-A
- Section 25-F
- Section 25-G
- Section 25-H
- Reinstatement
- Back Wages
- Adverse Inference
- Oral Termination
- Burden of Proof
