Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra, through the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. (North), Jalgaon, filed a writ petition challenging the Award dated 5.4.1994 passed by the Labour Court, Jalgaon, in Reference (IDA) No.19 of 1988. The respondent, Santosh Gorakh Patil, claimed he was appointed as a Watchman on 1.11.1984 and terminated on 8.7.1987. The petitioner contended that the respondent was engaged as a Daily-Wager from 22.1.1986 to 7.6.1987. The Labour Court held that the respondent had worked continuously as defined under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act), and that there was violation of Section 25G, ordering reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages. The High Court noted that there was no documentary evidence to establish that the respondent worked from 1.11.1984 to 7.6.1987, but the Labour Court's finding on continuous service was not challenged. However, the High Court found that there was no evidence on record that junior workmen were retained in employment, which is essential to prove violation of Section 25G. The petitioner had proved compliance with Section 25F by issuing one month's notice and paying retrenchment compensation. The Labour Court disregarded these facts and erroneously concluded violation of Section 25G. The High Court held that the burden of proof for violation of Section 25G lies on the employee, and in absence of any evidence, the finding of violation cannot be sustained. Consequently, the impugned Award was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act - Retrenchment - Section 25G - Violation - Burden of Proof - The employee must lead evidence to show that junior workmen were retained while he was terminated. In absence of such evidence, no violation of Section 25G can be inferred. (Paras 6-7)
B) Industrial Disputes Act - Continuous Service - Section 25B - Daily-Wager - The Labour Court's finding that the employee had worked continuously under Section 25B was based on evidence and not interfered with. (Para 5)
C) Industrial Disputes Act - Reinstatement - Section 25G - No Automatic Entitlement - Even if continuous service is proved, reinstatement cannot be granted solely on that basis without establishing violation of Section 25G. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court could order reinstatement for violation of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, when there was no evidence that junior workmen were retained and the employer had complied with Section 25F.
Final Decision
The impugned Award dated 5.4.1994 passed by the Labour Court, Jalgaon, is quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed.
Law Points
- Burden of proof for violation of Section 25G of Industrial Disputes Act lies on employee
- Reinstatement not automatic even if Section 25B continuous service is proved
- Compliance with Section 25F does not establish violation of Section 25G
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (02) 20
WRIT PETITION NO.973 OF 1995
Petitioner: Shri K.M.Suryawanshi, AGP; Respondent 1: Shri S.K.Shelke
Shri Santosh Gorakh Patil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging Labour Court award ordering reinstatement of a daily-wager watchman.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (State of Maharashtra) sought quashing of the Labour Court's Award dated 5.4.1994.
Filing Reason
The Labour Court ordered reinstatement with continuity of service despite no evidence of violation of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court, Jalgaon, in Reference (IDA) No.19 of 1988, allowed the reference and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages.
Issues
Whether the Labour Court could order reinstatement for violation of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, when there was no evidence that junior workmen were retained.
Whether the burden of proof for violation of Section 25G lies on the employee.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the respondent was a daily-wager from 22.1.1986 to 7.6.1987, and that compliance with Section 25F was proved.
Petitioner contended that there was no evidence of junior workmen being retained, and the Labour Court erred in finding violation of Section 25G.
Respondent claimed he was appointed on 1.11.1984 and terminated on 8.7.1987, and that he had worked continuously.
Ratio Decidendi
For a finding of violation of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the employee must lead evidence to show that junior workmen were retained while he was terminated. In absence of such evidence, no violation can be inferred, and reinstatement cannot be granted on that ground.
Judgment Excerpts
There is no evidence on record, much less any submissions, on the part of the respondent / employee that junior workmen have been retained in employment and the respondent has been terminated in contravention of Section 25G of the ID Act.
The fact that the petitioner proved due compliance of Section 25F and that there was no iota of evidence before the Labour Court that juniors have been continued in employment, have been disregarded by the Labour Court which granted reinstatement with continuity of service to the respondent / employee.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Reference (IDA) No.19 of 1988 before the Labour Court, Jalgaon, challenging his termination. The Labour Court allowed the reference by Award dated 5.4.1994, ordering reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages. The State of Maharashtra filed Writ Petition No.973 of 1995 in the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the Award. The petition was admitted on 3.3.1995. By order dated 23.2.2000, the petitioner was directed to pay last drawn wages under Section 17B of the ID Act. The High Court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 20.2.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 17B, 25B, 25F, 25G
