2005 (3) TMI 723 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the Respondents have completed 240 days of service or not? Held that - The Appellant herein raised a specific plea denying or disputing the claim of the Respondents that they had completed 240 days of work. Such a plea having been raised both before the Industrial Tribunal as also before the High Court we cannot accept that the Appellant had abandoned such a plea. The contention of Mr. Phadke that they have abandoned the said plea cannot be accepted. Similarly the contention of Mr. Phadke raised before us that the order passed by the Division Bench was a consent order is unacceptable. The Division Bench does not say so. Such a contention has been raised only on the basis of a statement made by the Respondents in the Counter-affidavit wherein the reference had been made to one order of the Division Bench asking the parties to make endeavour for settlement. The Respondents contend that the order of the Division Bench is virtually a consent order. No settlement admittedly had been arrived at. A party to the lis in absence of a statutory interdict cannot be deprived of his right of appeal. The High Court has passed the judgment upon consideration of the rival contentions raised at the Bar. It arrived at specific findings on the issues framed by it. It has for the reasons stated in the impugned judgment affirmed the findings of the Industrial Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge. The impugned order of the Division Bench in our opinion by no stretch of imagination can be said to have been passed with consent of the parties. However we agree with the opinion of the Tribunal that the plea of abandonment of service by the Respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case was wholly misconceived. For the reasons aforementioned the impugned judgments cannot be sustained which are accordingly set aside. The appeals are allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Status of Ticca Mazdoors.
2. Effect of Judgment of Acquittal.
3. Compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
4. Non-production of documents.
5. Burden of Proof.
6. Judicial Review.
7. Effect of the Order of Reinstatement.
8. Other Contentions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Status of Ticca Mazdoors:
Ticca Mazdoors are not regarded as regular Mazdoors. The Reserve Bank of India maintains two waiting lists: one for potential regular Mazdoors and another for Ticca Mazdoors. Ticca Mazdoors are engaged intermittently based on the need and are not considered permanent employees. Their status is akin to temporary workmen or probationers, and their services can be dispensed with subject to statutory or contractual requirements.

2. Effect of Judgment of Acquittal:
The acquittal of the Respondents in the criminal cases does not automatically entitle them to reinstatement. The employer can still initiate departmental proceedings against the employees for alleged misconduct. The Supreme Court held that the judgment of acquittal, especially when based on the benefit of doubt, does not bind the employer. The employer's loss of confidence in the employees due to alleged misconduct, such as producing false certificates, can justify not regularizing their services.

3. Compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act:
Section 25F mandates that a workman must have completed 240 days of service in the 12 months preceding the termination to claim benefits under the Act. The Tribunal held that the Appellant did not produce the attendance register and relied on circumstantial evidence and an admission by a witness (MW3) to conclude that the Respondents had completed 240 days of service. However, the Supreme Court found that the Respondents did not provide sufficient evidence to prove their continuous service for 240 days, and the Tribunal's findings were based on irrelevant factors.

4. Non-production of Documents:
The Tribunal directed the Appellant to produce the attendance register, which was not done, citing the documents were old and destroyed. The Tribunal drew an adverse inference for non-production of the attendance register but not for wage slips or other documents. The Supreme Court held that drawing an adverse inference was not justified as the Respondents did not provide any evidence to support their claim of 240 days of service.

5. Burden of Proof:
The initial burden of proof lies with the workmen to show they had completed 240 days of service. The Tribunal wrongly placed the onus on the Appellant. The Supreme Court reiterated that the workmen must provide evidence, such as attendance records or salary receipts, to substantiate their claim. The Respondents' failure to provide such evidence meant they did not meet the burden of proof.

6. Judicial Review:
The Tribunal's findings were deemed perverse and irrational as it posed wrong questions and considered irrelevant factors. The Supreme Court emphasized that a quasi-judicial authority must pose correct questions to arrive at a correct finding. The High Court also failed to address the relevant questions and proceeded on incorrect assumptions.

7. Effect of the Order of Reinstatement:
Reinstatement due to non-compliance with Section 25F does not change the status of Ticca Mazdoors to regular employees. The Respondents would continue as Ticca Mazdoors and would not automatically be absorbed into regular service. The Supreme Court highlighted that 240 days of continuous service does not entitle a workman to permanence and regularization must comply with statutory and contractual conditions.

8. Other Contentions:
The Appellant consistently denied the Respondents' claim of completing 240 days of service. The contention that the Division Bench's order was a consent order was rejected as no settlement was reached. The Supreme Court agreed with the Tribunal that the plea of abandonment of service by the Respondents was misconceived.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments, allowing the appeals without any order as to costs. The findings of the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court were deemed unsustainable due to errors in law and fact, misdirection in posing questions, and reliance on irrelevant factors.

← Previous Next →