Executive Engineer vs Rasul Mullubhai

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—As common questions on law and facts are involved in this group of petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

In this group of petitions, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the impugned awards passed by the Labour Court, whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent workmen in service.

The short facts of the case are that the respondent workmen at the relevant time were working as rojamdars with the petitioner and they worked as such for four years. The petitioner without assigning any reason and without giving any notice or notice pay, terminated the services of the respondent workmen. Being aggrieved by the said order of termination, the respondent workmen raised an industrial dispute which was ultimately, referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. Before the Labour Court, both the parties adduced evidence and after appreciating the material produced before it, the Labour Court allowed the References with the aforesaid directions. Hence, these petitions.

3.0 Mr. Hasurkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent workmen has not produced any documentary evidence on record to prove that they have completed 240 days. According to him they have been appointed as nominal muster roll employees. He submitted that the respondent workmen were given work as and when the work is available and when there was no work they were not engaged in service. He further submitted that no persons were appointed after the respondents were terminated and therefore, there is no violation of any of the provisions.

3.1. Mr. Hasurkar, submitted that the petitioner is not covered under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the impugned awards require to be quashed and set aside.

3.2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. v. Mohammed Rafi reported in (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 646, wherein the Court has observed that the burden of proof as to completion of 240 days of continuous work in a year lies on the workman.

Mr. Rathod, learned Counsel for the respondent supported the awards of the Labour Court and submitted that the Labour Court has considered all the facts and circumstances of the case. He submitted that the Labour Court has recorded a clear finding that there is violation of provisions of Sections 25G & 25H of the Act and therefore, no interference may be caused in these petitions.

4.1. The learned Counsel for the respondent workmen has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No. 1 Panipat (Haryana), wherein the Court has observed that burden lies on employer to lead tangible evidence as to compliance of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25F.

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It appears that the petitioner before terminating the services of the respondent workmen had not produced any seniority list. The said fact is clearly established from evidence produced at Exhibit. 21. Moreover, the petitioner had also not produced any documentary evidence in support of his case and also to object the averments made by the workmen in the statement of claims. There is also clear finding that there is violation of provisions of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out anything contrary to the said findings of the Labour Court, Therefore, I am of the view that the Labour Court has rightly passed the awards qua reinstatement.

5.1. So far as the contention raised by the petitioner that petitioner is not an ''Industry'' is concerned, the same is without any basis since no documentary evidence was produced before the Labour Court to establish same. Therefore, in the present proceedings it is not open to the petitioner to raise the said contention. Hence, the said contention raised by the petitioner is devoid of any merits and is accordingly rejected.

Looking to the facts of the case and in view of the fact the fact that there is clear violation of the provisions of Section 25G and 25H of the I.D. Act, the impugned awards passed by the Labour Court are just and proper. Even other wise, in the impugned award the Labour Court had discussed the entire evidence in detail and I find that while arriving at the conclusion the Labour Court has not committed any illegality which warrants any interference from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given and findings arrived at by the Labour Court and hence, do not find any reason to interfere with the same.

Consequently, the petitions stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.