Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Pune Labour Union, filed a writ petition challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Pune, dated 21 August 1999, which partly allowed Reference (IT) No.25 of 1994. The dispute concerned the alleged illegal termination of 26 workmen by Respondent No.1 Company, M/s B.G. Shirke & Co. Most workmen settled, leaving only four: Arjun Govind Kamble, Balu Baban Lohar, Kisan Rambhau Shirke (deceased, pursued by heirs), and K. Prakash Rao. The Union claimed the workmen had been employed since 1982 and that their termination violated the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, particularly Section 25H regarding seniority. The Respondent contended the workmen were appointed only in March 1993. The Tribunal directed production of documents, and the Respondent produced muster-cum-wage registers from January 1992 to May 1993. After evidence, the Tribunal granted reinstatement without back wages only to Arjun Govind Kamble, finding that the others failed to prove continuous service from 1982. The Union argued that the Tribunal erred in placing the burden of proof on the workmen and in not granting full back wages. The High Court, per Justice N.M. Jamdar, held that the Tribunal's findings were based on evidence and not perverse. The Court noted that the Union did not lead sufficient evidence to establish the workmen's service from 1982, and the muster rolls produced by the Company did not support the claim. The Court also observed that the Tribunal's discretion in granting reinstatement without back wages was reasonable. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's award.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Reinstatement without Back Wages - Section 25H, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Industrial Tribunal granted reinstatement without back wages to one workman while denying relief to others. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's discretion, noting that the workmen failed to prove continuous service from 1982. Held that the Tribunal's findings were based on evidence and not perverse (Paras 1-5). B) Industrial Law - Burden of Proof - Continuous Service - The burden lies on the workman to establish continuous service. The Petitioner Union failed to produce sufficient evidence to show that the workmen were employed since 1982. The Respondent Company produced muster rolls from 1992-1993, which did not support the claim. Held that the Tribunal correctly placed the burden on the workmen (Paras 3-4). C) Industrial Law - Section 25H - Seniority List - The Petitioner alleged breach of Section 25H for not maintaining a seniority list. However, the Tribunal found that the workmen were not retrenched but their services were terminated for other reasons. Held that Section 25H was not applicable (Para 2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in granting reinstatement without back wages to only one out of four workmen and denying relief to the others, and whether the Tribunal's findings on the workmen's service continuity were perverse.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Tribunal's award dated 21 August 1999. The Tribunal's order granting reinstatement without back wages to Arjun Govind Kamble and denying relief to the other workmen was affirmed.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on workman to establish continuous service
- Reinstatement without back wages is a valid relief
- Section 25H of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 requires maintenance of seniority list
- Industrial Tribunal's discretion in granting relief
