Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Keru Kisan Rokade, was initially appointed on a temporary basis by the respondent, Geoffery Manners & Co. Ltd., Nasik. Although his appointment was for a fixed period, he was continued in service from time to time. He worked for several years without being made permanent. His services were terminated by the respondent on 5th September 1989. The petitioner approached the machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and obtained a Reference for adjudication of his dispute with respect to reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages. In his statement of claim, the petitioner pleaded inter alia that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination and that his termination was illegal and in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent contested the claim, denying that the petitioner had worked for 240 days and asserting that his appointment was temporary and came to an end by efflux of time. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence, dismissed the Reference holding that the petitioner failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. The petitioner challenged the award by way of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the Labour Court had appreciated the evidence correctly and that there was no perversity in the finding. The Court held that the burden to prove continuous service of 240 days lies on the workman and that the Labour Court's finding of fact cannot be interfered with under writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Termination of Service - Burden of Proof - Section 25F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The workman claimed reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages after termination. The Labour Court dismissed the reference holding that the workman failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. The High Court upheld the award, finding no perversity in the Labour Court's appreciation of evidence. Held that the burden to prove continuous service of 240 days lies on the workman and the Labour Court's finding of fact cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court erred in dismissing the reference for reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the Labour Court's Award dated 5th January, 1998 in Reference (IDA) No.48 of 1991.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on workman to establish continuous service of 240 days
- Termination of temporary employee not per se illegal
- Labour Court's appreciation of evidence not to be interfered with under writ jurisdiction
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (10) 55
Writ Petition No.6513 of 1998
Mr. M.S. Karnik with Mr. H.M. Inamdar for the Petitioner, Mr. J.P. Cama, Sr. Advocate, i/b. Crawford Bayley & Co., for the Respondent
Geoffery Manners & Co. Ltd., Nasik
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Award of the Labour Court, Nasik in Reference (IDA) No.48 of 1991 dated 5th January, 1998.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's services were terminated on 5th September, 1989, and he claimed that the termination was illegal and in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court, Nasik, by its Award dated 5th January, 1998, dismissed the Reference (IDA) No.48 of 1991.
Issues
Whether the Labour Court erred in dismissing the reference on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination and that his termination was illegal and in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The respondent contended that the petitioner's appointment was temporary and came to an end by efflux of time, and that the petitioner failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days.
Ratio Decidendi
The burden to prove that the workman had worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination lies on the workman. The Labour Court's finding of fact, based on appreciation of evidence, cannot be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution unless it is perverse. In this case, the Labour Court correctly found that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden.
Judgment Excerpts
The Award in Reference (IDA) No.48 of 1991 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Nasik on 5th January, 1998 has been challenged in this Writ Petition.
The petitioner was initially appointed on a temporary basis with the respondent-Company.
His services were terminated by the respondent on 5th September, 1989.
The petitioner, therefore, approached the machinery available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and obtained a Reference for adjudication of his dispute with respect to reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages.
In his statement of claim, the petitioner pleaded inter alia that he had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed temporarily and continued from time to time. His services were terminated on 5th September 1989. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Nasik as Reference (IDA) No.48 of 1991. The Labour Court dismissed the Reference on 5th January 1998. The petitioner challenged the Award by filing Writ Petition No.6513 of 1998 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 29th October 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 25F
- Constitution of India: Article 226
