Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Bhaskar Shivram Nerurkar, was employed as a Security Guard with the Respondent, M/s. Shreyas Industrial Estate Society, from 1st January 1990 to 1st December 1996. He and other co-workers raised a demand for higher emoluments on 28th November 1996, and soon thereafter, on 8th December 1996, his services were terminated along with other Security Guards. The Petitioner approached the machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and a Reference was made to the Labour Court, Mumbai (Reference (IDA) No.617 of 1997). The Labour Court dismissed the Reference, holding that the Petitioner had not completed 240 days of continuous service in the year preceding his termination, and therefore, the termination did not contravene Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Petitioner challenged this Award by way of a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the Petitioner had not produced any documentary evidence such as wage slips or attendance registers to prove his continuous service. The Respondent had produced muster rolls showing that the Petitioner worked only on certain days. The Court held that the burden of proof was on the workman to establish that he had worked for 240 days, and the Petitioner failed to discharge this burden. The Labour Court's finding was based on evidence and was not perverse. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the Labour Court's Award.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Termination of Service - Section 25F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Burden of Proof - The workman failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding termination - The Labour Court's finding that the workman did not complete 240 days of continuous service was based on evidence and not perverse - Held that the termination was not in contravention of Section 25F (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Petitioner had completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding year so as to attract the protection of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the Labour Court's Award dated 3rd December 1999.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on workman to establish continuous service of 240 days
- Termination without compliance with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act is void
- Labour Court's appreciation of evidence not perverse
