Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kawadu s/o Paikaji Parke, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Court, Yavatmal, dated 17.11.2003, which set aside the Labour Court's order dated 26.4.1995. The Labour Court had allowed his complaint under Section 28, Item No.1(a), (b) and (d) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act), directing reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The petitioner claimed he was employed with the respondent, Deputy Conservator of Forest, at Umari Timber Depot from 9.4.1984, taking measurements of wood and maintaining records, earning Rs.20.90 per day. He alleged that his services were terminated on 4.1.1991 without prior notice as required under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that juniors were retained, violating Section 25G. The respondent denied the claim, asserting that the petitioner was a daily wager who did not complete 240 days of continuous service. The Labour Court found in favor of the petitioner, but the Industrial Court reversed the decision on revision, holding that the petitioner failed to prove continuous service. The High Court, after hearing both sides, upheld the Industrial Court's order, noting that the petitioner did not produce muster rolls or other evidence to show he worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish continuous service, and the Labour Court's finding was based on surmises. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the Industrial Court's order was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unfair Labour Practice - Continuous Service - Burden of Proof - The complainant must prove that he worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months to claim protection under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Labour Court's finding of continuous service was based on insufficient evidence, and the Industrial Court correctly reversed it - Held that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner had completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding 12 months to attract protection under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order of the Industrial Court dated 17.11.2003 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on complainant to establish continuous service
- Definition of continuous service under Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Unfair labour practice under MRTU & PULP Act
- 1971
