9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of termination under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Whether the appellant worked for 240 days continuously. 3. Applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Irrigation Department. 4. Burden of proof regarding continuous service. 5. Drawing adverse inference for non-production of records. 6. Interference by the High Court with concurrent findings of fact. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Termination under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: The appellant claimed that his termination on 20.06.1994 was illegal as it did not comply with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which requires retrenchment compensation. The Labour Court found in favor of the appellant, directing reinstatement with 50% back wages, but the High Court set aside this order. 2. Whether the Appellant Worked for 240 Days Continuously: The Labour Court, based on the certificate (Ex.W1) and the appellant's testimony, concluded that he had worked for more than 240 days prior to his termination. The High Court, however, found the certificate to be fabricated and noted the absence of corroborative evidence like appointment letters or salary receipts. The Supreme Court emphasized that the appellant had stepped into the witness box and produced Ex.W1, which was not adequately countered by the management. 3. Applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Irrigation Department: The Labour Court held that the Irrigation Department was an "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, following the Karnataka High Court's decision. The Supreme Court noted that this issue was not argued in detail by the management at earlier stages, and thus declined to adjourn the matter pending a larger bench's decision on a related issue. 4. Burden of Proof Regarding Continuous Service: The Supreme Court reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the workman to show that he worked for 240 days in a given year. This can be discharged by stepping into the witness box and producing cogent evidence. The Court found that the appellant had met this burden by producing Ex.W1 and testifying, whereas the management failed to produce relevant muster rolls for the entire period. 5. Drawing Adverse Inference for Non-Production of Records: The Labour Court drew an adverse inference against the management for not producing the complete muster rolls. The Supreme Court upheld this approach, noting that the management's partial production of records and lack of explanation for missing documents justified the Labour Court's conclusion. 6. Interference by the High Court with Concurrent Findings of Fact: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for interfering with the Labour Court and Single Judge's concurrent findings without adequate reasons. It emphasized that High Courts should not interfere with factual findings unless they are perverse. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Labour Court's award. It directed the appellant's reinstatement as a daily wager with 50% back wages from the date of the award till reinstatement, emphasizing the need for proper record-keeping by government departments to avoid such disputes.
|
