Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Jai Bharti Shikshan Sanstha and the Head Master of Shri Sai Baba Vidyalaya, challenged the judgment and order dated 14.03.2012 passed by the Industrial Court at Nagpur in Complaint ULP No. 191 of 2004. The complaint was filed by the respondent-employee, Krushna Narayan Wanjari, alleging nonpayment of salary for two periods: March 1996 to September 1997 and December 2001 to October 2002. The Industrial Court held that the employer failed to establish that the employee was absent during those periods, thus ordering payment. The High Court examined the Muster Rolls, which were admitted by both parties, and found that they did not indicate the employee's presence or performance of duties. Importantly, the employee did not plead or provide evidence that he actually performed duties but was not allowed to sign the Muster Roll. The High Court held that the burden of proof lies on the employee to show actual work performed, and in the absence of such evidence, the employer cannot be held liable for salary. The Industrial Court's approach was erroneous. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the complaint was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Unpaid Salary - Burden of Proof - Employee must prove actual performance of duties - The employee complained of nonpayment of salary for specific periods. The Muster Rolls did not show his presence. The employee did not claim that he was prevented from signing the Muster Roll. The Industrial Court erroneously shifted the burden to the employer to prove absence. Held that in the absence of evidence of actual work, the employer is not liable for salary. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court erred in holding the employer liable for unpaid salary when the employee did not claim to have performed duties or sign the Muster Roll during the disputed period.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. The judgment and order dated 14.03.2012 passed by the Industrial Court at Nagpur in Complaint ULP No. 191 of 2004 is quashed and set aside. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on employee to show actual performance of duties
- Muster Rolls as evidence of attendance
- Employer not liable for salary during absence without permission
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (01) 72
Writ Petition No. 4730 of 2012
Dr. Anjan De for petitioners, Shri S.P. Kshirsagar for respondent No. 1
The Jai Bharti Shikshan Sanstha and The Head Master, Shri Sai Baba Vidyalaya
Krushna Narayan Wanjari and The Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Nagpur Bench
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging Industrial Court order in a complaint of unfair labour practice regarding nonpayment of salary.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of Industrial Court order directing payment of salary for periods of alleged absence.
Filing Reason
The Industrial Court held that the employer failed to prove the employee's absence, thereby ordering payment of salary for the disputed periods.
Previous Decisions
Industrial Court at Nagpur in Complaint ULP No. 191 of 2004 dated 14.03.2012 held employer liable for unpaid salary.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court erred in shifting the burden of proof to the employer to establish the employee's absence.
Whether the employee is entitled to salary for periods when he did not claim to have performed duties or sign the Muster Roll.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that Muster Rolls did not show employee's presence and employee did not claim to have performed duties.
Respondent-employee contended that employer failed to prove absence.
Ratio Decidendi
In a claim for unpaid salary, the employee must plead and prove that he actually performed duties during the disputed period. The Muster Rolls are evidence of attendance. If the employee does not claim that he was prevented from signing the Muster Roll, the burden does not shift to the employer to prove absence.
Judgment Excerpts
The Muster Rolls do not indicate that the complainant was present and has performed the duties.
It is not the case of the complainant that he has actually performed the duties during the said period but was not allowed to sign the Muster Roll.
In the absence of this case and any evidence on record to show that he has actually performed the duties during the said period, the Industrial Court has committed an error.
Procedural History
The respondent-employee filed Complaint ULP No. 191 of 2004 before the Industrial Court at Nagpur alleging nonpayment of salary. The Industrial Court allowed the complaint on 14.03.2012. The petitioners challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No. 4730 of 2012 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was heard and allowed on 28.01.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971:
