Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ms. Ganga S. Mane Raibagkar, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 12/11/2013 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal at Goa. The petitioner had raised an industrial dispute against the respondent, M/s. T & A, alleging that her services as a salesgirl were illegally terminated on 10/11/2004 without following the conditions under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She claimed she had completed 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months and sought reinstatement with full back wages. The respondent contended that the petitioner had voluntarily left service. The Tribunal framed issues and after hearing the parties, dismissed the reference holding that the petitioner voluntarily left service and that her services were not terminated by the respondent. The High Court examined the evidence and the Tribunal's findings. The court noted that the burden of proof was on the petitioner to establish that she was illegally terminated. The Tribunal had considered the oral and documentary evidence, including the fact that the petitioner did not report for duty after a certain date and that there was no termination letter or order. The High Court found that the Tribunal's conclusion was based on a plausible appreciation of evidence and was not perverse. The court reiterated that under Article 227, it cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings unless the Tribunal's order is without jurisdiction or perverse. The petition was dismissed, and the order of the Industrial Tribunal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Illegal Termination - Burden of Proof - Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The petitioner alleged illegal termination without notice or compensation, but the Tribunal found she voluntarily left service. The High Court held that the burden to prove termination lies on the workman, and the Tribunal's finding of voluntary resignation was based on evidence and not perverse, hence no interference under Article 227. (Paras 1-23) B) Industrial Law - Voluntary Resignation - Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The court held that voluntary resignation does not amount to retrenchment under Section 25(F), and therefore the conditions of notice and compensation are not attracted. The Tribunal's conclusion that the petitioner voluntarily left service was upheld. (Paras 2-23)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in holding that the petitioner voluntarily left service and that her services were not illegally terminated, and whether the order dated 12/11/2013 is liable to be set aside under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 12/11/2013.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on workman to establish illegal termination
- Voluntary resignation not covered under Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Industrial Tribunal's findings of fact not interfered with under Article 227 unless perverse
