Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Raymond UCO Denim Private Ltd., challenged the order dated 1.1.2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal in ULP Complaint No.27 of 2007. The Industrial Court had allowed the complaint filed by 53 workmen (respondent nos. 1 to 53) and directed the employer to grant them permanency. The employer contended that the workmen were not in continuous service and that the Industrial Court had erred in shifting the burden of proof. The workmen argued that they had completed 240 days of service and that the employer had failed to comply with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The High Court examined the evidence, including muster rolls and wage registers, and found that the employer had not produced original records and that the documents were unreliable. The Court held that the workmen had established that they had worked for 240 days and that the employer had committed unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The petition was dismissed, and the Industrial Court's order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Permanency - Section 3 read with Item 6 of Schedule IV of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The employer challenged the Industrial Court's order directing permanency to 53 workmen who had completed 240 days of service. The Court held that the workmen had established continuous service for 240 days and the employer failed to prove compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Industrial Court's finding of unfair labour practice was upheld. (Paras 1-10)
B) Industrial Law - Burden of Proof - Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The employer contended that the workmen were not in continuous service and that the burden was on the workmen to prove the same. The Court held that once the workmen showed that they had worked for 240 days, the burden shifted to the employer to show that the termination was in compliance with Section 25-F. The employer failed to discharge this burden. (Paras 5-8)
C) Industrial Law - Evidence - Appreciation of Documentary Evidence - The employer produced muster rolls and wage registers to show that the workmen had not worked for 240 days. The Industrial Court found that the documents were unreliable and that the employer had not produced the original records. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the employer's evidence was not credible. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in directing the employer to grant permanency to the workmen who had completed 240 days of service and whether the employer had committed unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Industrial Court dated 1.1.2009 directing the employer to grant permanency to the workmen.
Law Points
- Unfair Labour Practice
- Permanency
- Section 25-F Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 3 read with Item 6 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
- Burden of Proof on Employer
- Completion of 240 Days
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (04) 137
Writ Petition No. 4996 of 2009
Mr. C. U. Singh, Senior Counsel with Mr. R. B. Puranik, Adv. for petitioner; Mr. S. D. Thakur, Adv. for respondent nos. 1 to 53; Mr. T. R. Kankale, Adv. for respondent no.54
Raymond UCO Denim Private Ltd.
Praful Warade and 53 others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Industrial Court directing the employer to grant permanency to workmen.
Remedy Sought
The employer sought quashing of the Industrial Court's order dated 1.1.2009 in ULP Complaint No.27 of 2007.
Filing Reason
The employer challenged the Industrial Court's finding of unfair labour practice and direction to grant permanency to 53 workmen.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court, Yavatmal, by order dated 1.1.2009, allowed ULP Complaint No.27 of 2007 and directed the employer to grant permanency to the workmen.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court was correct in holding that the employer had committed unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Whether the workmen had completed 240 days of continuous service and were entitled to permanency.
Whether the burden of proof was correctly placed on the employer to show compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Submissions/Arguments
The employer argued that the workmen were not in continuous service and that the Industrial Court had erroneously shifted the burden of proof.
The workmen contended that they had completed 240 days of service and that the employer had failed to comply with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The employer submitted that the muster rolls and wage registers showed that the workmen had not worked for 240 days.
The workmen argued that the employer's documents were unreliable and that the original records were not produced.
Ratio Decidendi
Once the workmen establish that they have worked for 240 days in a calendar year, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the termination was in compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Failure to do so constitutes unfair labour practice under Item 6 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, entitling the workmen to permanency.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner/employer has challenged the order dt. 1.1.2009 passed by the Industrial Court, Yavatmal in ULP Complaint No.27 of 2007.
The learned Member of Industrial Court has directed the petitioner/employer to grant permanency to the workmen.
Procedural History
The workmen filed ULP Complaint No.27 of 2007 before the Industrial Court, Yavatmal, alleging unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint on 1.1.2009. The employer then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 3, Schedule IV Item 6
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 25-F
