Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department, Wardha, challenged an Award dated 7.3.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Wardha in Reference (I.D.A.) No.38 of 1998. The respondent, Ramesh B. Desbhratar, claimed he was employed from 1st April 1983 on road construction projects and was illegally terminated orally on 21.4.1986. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner filed a written statement on 15.5.1999 contending that the reference was delayed by 12 years and should be dismissed. The Labour Court, however, passed an Award directing reinstatement with continuity of service but denied back wages. The High Court framed two issues: whether the Labour Court was justified in entertaining a stale claim delayed by 12 years, and whether the burden of proof regarding 240 days of continuous service was correctly placed on the employer. The respondent argued that his termination was illegal and oral. The petitioner argued that the delay was fatal and that the burden of proof was wrongly shifted. The High Court held that the Labour Court erred in entertaining the stale claim without explanation for the delay and in placing the burden on the employer to prove the workman's service period. The Award was quashed and set aside, and the petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Reference of Dispute - Delay - Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 12 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Labour Court entertained a reference made after 12 years from the alleged termination - Held that such a stale claim should not have been entertained as the delay was unexplained and prejudicial to the employer (Paras 4-6). B) Industrial Law - Burden of Proof - Continuous Service - Section 25B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Labour Court erroneously placed the burden on the employer to prove that the workman had not worked for 240 days - Held that the initial burden lies on the workman to establish the fact of continuous service (Para 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court was justified in entertaining a stale claim delayed by 12 years and whether the burden of proof regarding 240 days of continuous service was correctly placed on the employer.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the Award dated 7.3.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Wardha in Reference (I.D.A.) No.38 of 1998.
Law Points
- Delay in reference of industrial dispute
- burden of proof for continuous service of 240 days
- stale claims
- Section 10(1)(c) and Section 12 of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
