Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Mahadev K. Naik, filed a Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Award dated 24/05/2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court – II, Goa (Respondent No.3). The petitioner claimed that he was working for M/s. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. (Fomento Resorts) for the construction of the Cidade de Goa Hotel from 1979. He alleged that he requested Respondent No.1 to confirm his services, and a recommendation note dated 28/11/1983 was issued by the Project Manager instead of an appointment letter. He further claimed that the Director of M/s. Fomento Engineering and Construction Ltd. (Fomento Engineering) obtained an application dated 30/11/1983 from him by fraud, and that Fomento Engineering issued a letter dated 20/12/1983 offering him the post of 'Civil Supervisor'. He contended that his services were not confirmed and he was terminated. The Labour Court held that the petitioner failed to prove his continuous employment and termination. The High Court, after examining the evidence, found that the Labour Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and that the petitioner had not discharged the burden of proof. The High Court held that there was no perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned award and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Industrial Dispute - Burden of Proof - Continuous Service - The workman must prove his continuous employment and termination by the employer; mere production of documents without corroborative evidence is insufficient - Held that the Labour Court correctly appreciated the evidence and found that the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof (Paras 1-34). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 - Interference with findings of fact - The High Court in writ jurisdiction does not act as an appellate court and will not re-appreciate evidence unless the finding is perverse or based on no evidence - Held that the impugned award was based on proper appreciation of evidence and no interference was warranted (Paras 1-34).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court erred in holding that the petitioner failed to prove his continuous employment and termination from service, and whether the impugned award suffers from perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the Labour Court's Award dated 24/05/2010.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on workman to establish continuous service and termination
- Standard of proof in industrial adjudication
- Scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
