Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru Principal Govt. Food ... vs Maan Singh And Another on 31 October, 2019
Author: Yashwant Varma
Bench: Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27247 of 2003 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru Principal Govt. Food And Others Respondent :- Maan Singh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- S.C.,M. Bhargava Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,B.N.Singh Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard Sri Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners. Although respondent no.1 is duly represented, none has appeared on his behalf even when the matter is taken in the revised call.
The State by means of the instant writ petition challenges an Award rendered by the Labour Court answering a reference in favour of the first respondent. It appears from the record that before the Labour Court, proceedings were taken ex parte and the petitioner did not file any written statement. The workman who had appeared, filed his statement of claim and was also examined on oath. The Labour Court while passing the impugned award, has answered the reference by solely observing that since no cross examination was undertaken, the claim of the petitioner was liable to be allowed.
Sri Sekhar, learned counsel contends that even if the Labour Court was proceeding ex parte, it was incumbent upon it to verify and satisfy itself from the records whether the workman had been in continuous service. According to Sri Sekhar, the Labour Court while annulling the order of termination also does not refer to any provision of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which may have been violated. In support of his submissions, Sri Sekhar places reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in R.M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt. Executive Engineer (2006) 1 SCC 106 wherein following observations have come to be entered:
"17. Analyzing the above decisions of this court, it is clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms do not apply to the proceedings under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general principles and on reading the aforestated judgments, we find that this Court has repeatedly taken the view that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is discharged only upon the workman stepping in the witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In cases of termination of services of daily-waged earners, there will be no letter of appointment or termination. There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in most cases, the workman (the claimant) can only call upon the employer to produce before the court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately would depend thereafter on the facts of each case. The above decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or self-serving statements made by the claimant workman will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days in a given year. The above judgments further lay down that mere non-production of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the claimant workman will not be the ground for the Tribunal to draw an adverse inference against the management. Lastly, the above judgments lay down the basic principle, namely, that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution will not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court unless they are perverse. This exercise will depend upon facts of each case."
Additionally Sri Sekhar places reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Devyani Beverages Ltd. Vs. Labour Court-II, Ghaziabad 2005 (6) AWC 6249 wherein following observations have come to be entered:
"13. In the present cast, the award has been passed merely on the basis of the written statement of the employee. The entire award is bereft of any discussion on the merits of the case. A perusal of the award shows that only the case of the workman has been set out and without analytically examining the material on record and recording reasons for its conclusion, the claim of the employer has been allowed simply on account of the provisions of Rule 12 (9) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957. The said award being totally unsupported by reasons or discussions, cannot be said to be an award on merits of the case Failure to give reasons would amount to denial of justice. The award speaks of the filing of the written statement by the employer but has not dealt on the comparative merit of the claims and counter claims. Jumping to the conclusion that the termination of the workman was illegal after merely setting out the factual aspect of the case, and without discussing the merits, would render the award illegal and unsustainable in law. There is no analytical examination of the merits of the claim which shows total non-application of mind."
As is evident from a reading of the impugned award, no finding whatsoever have been recorded by the Labour Court with respect to the validity of the alleged termination of of the first respondent. The Labour Court also does not record any finding with respect to the respondent being in continuous service. The Labour Court also fails to allude to any provision of the 1947 Act which according to it, may have been violated upon the termination of service of the first respondent. In view thereof, the Court finds itself unable to sustain the impugned Award.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned Award dated 14 May 2002 stands consequently quashed. The matter shall in consequence stand remitted to the concerned Labour Court for decision afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.
Order Date :- 31.10.2019 Vivek Kr.