Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an industrial reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, where the respondent workman alleged illegal termination. The workman claimed he had been working as a daily-wage labourer with the petitioner university from 01-01-1984, and his services were orally terminated on 01-07-1994 without notice, enquiry, or compensation. The employer denied termination, asserting that the workman had abandoned employment on 07-07-1993 and that he was a temporary employee engaged seasonally, who had never completed 240 days of service in any calendar year. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, which allowed the reference and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from 01-07-1994. The employer filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award. The High Court examined whether the Labour Court’s finding that the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding year was perverse. The workman’s own chart (Exhibit C8) showed that in 1993—the year immediately before termination—he worked only 128 days; the Labour Court had erroneously relied on earlier years and recorded a factually incorrect finding. The court held that the burden of proving 240 days’ service rested on the workman, and he failed to discharge it. Furthermore, the reference was made in 2004, ten years after the alleged termination, with no explanation for the delay, rendering the claim stale. The High Court also noted that the Labour Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by recording findings on the employer’s plea of abandonment of service, which was not a term of the reference. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the Labour Court’s award dated 17-07-2010 was quashed and set aside.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Termination of Workman - Condition Precedent for Retrenchment - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Sections 25F, 25B - The Labour Court directed reinstatement with full back wages on a finding that the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding year. However, the workman's own chart (Exhibit C8) showed that in 1993, the year immediately before the alleged termination in 1994, he worked only 128 days. The High Court found this finding perverse and without basis, as the relevant period was not correctly considered. Held, the workman failed to prove compliance with Section 25B, thus Section 25F was not attracted; reinstatement was wrongly granted. (Paras 12-13) B) Labour Law - Delay in Raising Industrial Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The workman's services were allegedly terminated on 01-07-1994, but the reference was filed only in 2004, after a delay of ten years with no explanation forthcoming. The High Court held that the reference was hopelessly delayed and stale, and such a stale claim should not have been entertained by the Labour Court. The delay went to the root of the matter. (Paras 8, 11, 13) C) Labour Law - Jurisdiction of Labour Court - Scope of Reference - The employer had taken a plea of abandonment of service by the workman. The Labour Court, while adjudicating, gave a finding on abandonment. Held, that this issue was beyond the terms of reference, and the Labour Court should have confined itself to the points referred; the finding on abandonment was unwarranted and without jurisdiction. (Paras 11-12) D) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Proof of 240 Days' Service - The workman claimed he had worked for more than 240 days; the burden was on him to establish this. The employer did not lead evidence, but the workman's own documentary evidence (chart) contradicted his claim for the relevant year. Held, in the absence of proof of 240 days' continuous service in the preceding year, the workman was not entitled to protection under the Industrial Disputes Act. (Paras 9, 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court was justified in directing reinstatement with continuity and back wages when the workman failed to prove 240 days of continuous service in the year preceding termination and when the reference was filed after a delay of ten years.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed; impugned Award dated 17-07-2010 passed by Labour Court, Latur in Reference (IDA) No. 07 of 2005 is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- workman must prove 240 days continuous service in the preceding year to claim retrenchment protection
- delay in raising industrial dispute can render reference stale
- labour court cannot travel beyond scope of reference
- finding of fact based on misreading of evidence is perverse
