Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Pramod Raghunathrao Deshpande, filed a complaint under Section 28(1) of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act) before the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, alleging unfair labour practice by the Ahmednagar Municipal Council. He claimed he was employed by the Municipal Council from 1979, working in various departments (Town Planning, Public Works, and Octroi) initially on daily wages and later on a regular basis from 13.5.1981 to 14.10.1981. He asserted that he completed 240 days of continuous service and was entitled to protection. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint, finding that the petitioner failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding year. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court, after hearing the parties, noted that the Industrial Court had considered the evidence and found that the petitioner did not produce sufficient documentary proof to establish continuous service. The court observed that the burden of proof was on the workman to show that he had completed 240 days of continuous service, and the petitioner had not discharged that burden. The High Court found no perversity or error of law in the Industrial Court's order and dismissed the petition. The court held that the findings of fact recorded by the Industrial Court were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Continuous Service - Section 28(1) of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Burden of proof on workman to establish 240 days continuous service - The petitioner claimed employment from 1979 but failed to produce documentary evidence to show he worked for 240 days in the preceding year. The Industrial Court dismissed the complaint for lack of proof. The High Court upheld the finding, holding that the burden lies on the workman to prove continuous service. (Paras 1-5) B) Labour Law - Evidence - Appreciation of Documentary Evidence - The petitioner relied on oral evidence and some documents, but the Industrial Court found the evidence insufficient to prove continuous service. The High Court declined to interfere with the factual findings. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding year to be entitled to protection against unfair labour practice.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order that the petitioner failed to prove 240 days of continuous service.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on workman to establish continuous service of 240 days
- MRTU and PULP Act Section 28(1)
- Industrial Disputes Act Section 25-B
