State of U.P. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court (1) and Jitendra Kumar Pandey through Rishi Kant Tiwari

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Standing Counsel for the petitioner- State of U.P.

Services of the respondent No. 2- workman were terminated w.e.f. 26.9.1991. He raised an industrial dispute before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kanpur.Vide order dated 7.7.1994 the dispute regarding legality and justification of the order of termination of services of the respondent-workman was referred to the Labour Court (I) Kanpur, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 197/94.

On receipt of summons from the Labour Court, the parties filed their respective written statements. The case of the workman was that he had been employed by the employer- Public Works Department on 26.6.1990 on the post of Mazdoor and had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year but his services were terminated illegally and in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

The stand taken by the employer was that the workman had not worked continuously from 26.9.1991 but was engaged, from time to time, during the period 1991-92 as a daily wager.

The Labour Court, on the basis of appraisal of evidence, held that termination of services of the workman by the employer was illegal and unjustified. By its award dated 9.8.1996, the Labour Court directed the employer to reinstate the workman with continuity in service and pay the entire back wages within one month from the date of publication of the award.

From paragraph 4 of the award, it is evident that the employer had not produced any evidence in support of their case and had not argued the case. The case of the employer, thus, was a case of no evidence. The relevant finding recorded by the Labour Court in the award is as under:

oknh us lsok;kstdks ds dFku dk izfrokn fd;k rFkk dgk fd mldh lsok,a voS/kkfud :i ls lekIr dh x;h gS A oknh usa dfri; vfHkys[kh; lcwr Hkh nkf[ky fd;s gS rFkk Loa; viuk c;ku ''kiFk iwoZd fd;k gS tcfd lsok ;kstd izfroknh dh vksj ls u rks dksbZ vfHkys[k nkf[ky fd;s x;s gS vkSj u dksbZ tckuh lcwr is''k fd;k x;k gS A cgl ds le; Hkh lsok;kstdks dh vksj ls dksbZ mifLFkr ugh gqvkA

Learned standing Counsel could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned award. It is established law that after discharge of his burden of proof by the workman, the onus is shifted on the employer. Reference in this regard may be made to Shankar Chakravarti Vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and Another, and the ratio laid down in Shankar''s case ((supra)) was followed in Shankar Chakravarti Vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. Ltd. and Another, ; Airtech Private Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1984 (49) FLR 38 and Meritech India Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 FLR 2004

It is evident from the record and the finding given by the Labour Court that the employer did not file any documentary evidence in support of its case. They neither adduced any evidence nor argued the case before the Labour Court whereas the respondent-workman not only filed produced documentary evidence in support of his case but also proved the same by adducing oral evidence. In the instant case, the onus was not discharged by the employer as is apparent from a bare perusal of paragraph 4 of the impugned award.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and substance which is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.