Case Note & Summary
The appellant, the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Latur, challenged the order of a learned Single Judge dated 22.11.2012 in Writ Petition No.2946/2012, which had upheld the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman, Satish Dnyanoba Gaikwad, with continuity of service and back wages. The workman had claimed that he was employed as a daily wager from 1995 to 2005 and was illegally terminated without compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court, Latur, and the Industrial Court had found that the workman had worked for 240 days in a calendar year and ordered reinstatement. The appellant contended that the workman failed to produce any evidence to prove his continuous service of 240 days, and the burden of proof was wrongly shifted to the employer. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, consisting of Justices R.M. Borde and R.V. Ghuge, allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Labour Court, Industrial Court, and the learned Single Judge. The Court held that the workman had not discharged the burden of proving that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year, as required under Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman did not produce any muster rolls, wage slips, or other documentary evidence. The Court also noted that the workman had not proved his willingness to work or that the employer had work available. Consequently, the order of reinstatement with back wages was set aside. The Court observed that the Letters Patent Appeal was maintainable and that the findings of the lower courts were perverse and based on no evidence.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25-B - Continuous Service - Burden of Proof - The workman must prove that he has worked for 240 days in a calendar year to claim protection under Section 25-F. The employer is not required to lead evidence first. The workman failed to produce any documentary evidence such as muster rolls or wage slips to establish his claim. Held that the Labour Court and Industrial Court erred in shifting the burden onto the employer. (Paras 5-8) B) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25-F - Retrenchment Compensation - Reinstatement with Back Wages - Even if retrenchment is found illegal, reinstatement with full back wages is not automatic. The workman must prove that he was willing to work and that the employer had work. In this case, the workman did not prove his willingness or the availability of work. Held that the order of reinstatement with back wages was unsustainable. (Paras 9-10) C) Letters Patent Appeal - Maintainability - An intra-court appeal under the Letters Patent is maintainable against an order of a Single Judge in a writ petition arising from a labour matter. The Division Bench can reappreciate the evidence and interfere if the findings are perverse. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year to be entitled to protection under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court erred in ordering reinstatement with back wages.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Orders of Labour Court, Industrial Court, and learned Single Judge set aside. The workman's claim for reinstatement and back wages is dismissed.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on workman to establish continuous service of 240 days
- Reinstatement with back wages not automatic
- Letters Patent Appeal maintainable against Single Judge order in writ petition
