Subhash Kumar vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Others

Arun Palli, J—Workman raised an industrial dispute alleging illegal termination of his services on 07.07.2000. It was maintained that he was employed as Peon on 22.05.1995, and his services were brought to an end without affording him any notice, holding of any domestic inquiry or payment of retrenchment compensation. So much so, persons junior to the petitioner were retained in service. In defence, it was maintained that the workman had in fact abandoned service at his own accord and abstained from duty. Thus, there was no question of any termination. Consequently, no notice, charge-sheet or any compensation was required to be paid.

Labour Court, on an analysis of the matter in issue and the evidence on record, concluded that the onus to prove that the workman had indeed served the management for a period of 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding the date of termination was upon the workman himself. Nothing was brought on record, least any cogent evidence, to substantiate such a claim. So much so, an application moved by the workman seeking direction to the management to produce the relevant records to substantiate his claim was not pressed and the workman closed his evidence. Therefore, even no adverse inference could be drawn against the management either. That being so, there cannot be any dispute that the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act were also not attracted. Likewise, albeit it was maintained that persons junior to the workman i.e. Banwari Lal and Ramesh Kumar, were retained in service, but again nothing was brought on record to prove such an assertion. Therefore, there was no breach of the provisions of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act. In fact, the stand set out in the written statement filed by the management remained un-controverted, as neither any replication nor any counter-affidavit was filed. Not just that, the petition in hand has been filed after almost three years i.e. on 29.05.2015 of the passing of the award dated 1.8.2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to how the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court is either erroneous in law or contrary to the position on record. That being so, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted.

Dismissed in limine.