AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chakndru, J.—The Petitioner is the Management of Plantationsituated in Salem District. They have come forward tochallenge an Award passed by the first Respondent LabourCourt, Salem in I.D. No. 251 of 2002 dated 27.03.2008.
By the impugned Award, the Labour Court held thatdenial of employment from 06.04.2000 to 26.09.2000 inrespect of four workers M/s. Natarajan, Ramar, Selvakumariand Saroja was not justified. Therefore, it directed thepayment of wages for the said period with continuity ofservice.
The writ petition was admitted on 30.10.2009. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interimstay on condition that the Petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the credit of the I.D. It is stated by thelearned Counsel for the Petitioner that they were readyto comply with the conditional order but the time limitgranted by this Court had expired, they could not do so. This excuse cannot be accepted as the Petitioner hadample opportunity to move this Court seeking forextension of time. In any event, even after notice beingserved, the second Respondent has not appeared eitherthrough any authorised representative or through counsel. This Court directed the original records filed before theLabour Court to be circulated for perusal by this Court. Accordingly, the Registry has circulated the originalrecords.
The facts leading to the passing of the impugned Award are as follows:
The second Respondent Union raised a dispute withreference to the denial of wages in respect of four oftheir members before the Government Labour Officer. Onfailure report being sent to the State Government, theState Government issued G.O.(D) No. 175 Labour andEmployment Department dated 28.02.2002 and referred theissue for adjudication by the first Respondent LabourCourt.
On receipt of the reference, the Labour Court tookup the dispute as I.D. No. 251 of 2001 and issued notice toboth sides. On the side of the Second Respondent Union,the Claim Statement was filed on 09.07.2002. ThePetitioner Management filed counter statement dated Nil(March 2003).
Before the Labour Court, on the side of theManagement, one P. Murugan was examined as R.W.1 and theyfiled one document which was marked as Ex.R1., which is aWage Register for the year 1998-99 and 2001-02. On theside of the workmen, one V.K. Nallamuthu was examined as P.W.1 and filed 12 documents which were marked as Exs.P1 to P12.
The Labour Court on an analysis of documents heldthat the workmen were regular employees. When they sentnotice to the Management about the denial of employment,the same was not received by the Management and had comeback unserved and those returned covers were marked asExs.P2, P4, P6 and P8. The Labour Court basing itsfinding on those four returned covers held that theworkers were denied employment. On the wage registerproduced, which was marked as Ex.R1 series, the LabourCourt held that the Management had not filed any documentto prove that the workers were working in some otherestate and in the absence of the work in other estate,they were engaged by Petitioner Management. The LabourCourt also relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 V.K. Nallamuthu and found that the Management had employedthe worker for more than 240 days in a year and theywere denied employment from 06.04.2000.
But a perusal of the oral evidence of P.W.1V.K. Nallamuthu, who was General Secretary of the secondRespondent Union shows that except for the oral evidence,there is no other records produced by the Union. In thecross examination, he had stated that if the documents onthe side of the Management are looked into, then thenumber of days worked by the workers will be made known.
On the other hand, R.W.1 who is the Estate Managerhad marked the Wage Register and had stated that theManagement is maintaining all the registers that arerequired to be maintained under the Plantation Labour Actbut they have not filed those documents. In the Ex.R1,signature of the Plantation Inspector was not found. Atthe same time, he denied the suggestion that Ex.R1 wasprepared for the purpose of the case. This Court also hada perusal of Ex.R1 series, where left hand thumbimpression of all the workers including the four workerscovered by the reference was found. There is no reason todispute the genuineness of the said document and if thetotal number of days worked by these workmen are takennote of from the said register, none of the four workershave served 240 days in a year. Therefore, the findingsrecorded by the Labour Court is not based upondocumentary evidence filed by the Management. The LabourCourt had nowhere held that Ex.R1 was prepared for thepurpose of this case. Infact, a perusal of the Awardshows that the Labour Court had not even looked into thesaid document and made a superficial statement that theManagement should have produced some other document forthe purpose of disproving number of days worked by theWorkmen.
On an analysis of the documentary and oralevidence produced, this Court is of the view that theworkers inasmuch as they had not worked 240 days in ayear and hence they are not eligible for getting anyrelief. The impugned Award suffers from materialirregularity and non-application of mind. In thiscontext, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of theSupreme Court in Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam and Another Vs. Sham Lal, . In that case, the Supreme Court had held that the burden of proving that a workmen had worked for240 days or more is on the workman and not on theemployer. In this case, the employer had produced Ex.R1series before the Court. In the absence of any otherdocument being summoned, no adverse inference can bedrawn.
In the light of the above, the writ petitionstands allowed and the impugned Award stands set aside. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.