Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. And 2 Others vs Pradeep Kumar And 2 Others on 29 July, 2022
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 38 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12469 of 2019 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Respondent :- Pradeep Kumar And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Shyam Narain,Sudhanshu Narain Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Ajit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Shri Amit Verma, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Sudhanshu Narain, learned counsel for respondent workmen.
2. Present petition has been filed by the State against the award of the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, dated 1.12.2016 in Adjudication Case No. 19 of 2012. Similar awards are under challenge in Writ - C Nos. 12471 of 2019 and 12521 of 2019. The present award has arisen on the reference order dated 27.08.2012 whereby the following dispute was referred for adjudication:
"Kya Sewayojakon Dwara Apne Shramik Shri Pradeep Kumar Putra Shri Rajendra, Maali Gram - Siktaur Post - Khorabar Janpad - Gorakhpur Ko Dinaank 2.8.2011 Se Karya Se Prithak/Vanchit Kiya Jaana Ucchit Tatha/Athva Vaidhanik Hai? Yadi Nahin Toh Karamchari Kis Hitlaabh/Chhatipurti Ke Paane Ka Adhikari Hai Evam Anya Kin Vivarono Sahit?"
3. The Labour Court has granted relief of reinstatement on the post of 'Gardener' with continuity of service from 2.8.2011. Also, the Labour Court has granted relief of 50% back-wages.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, in the first place, it cannot be accepted, the award was made hurriedly in an ex-parte manner, without affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Plain reading of the award reveals, despite service of notice and repeated date fixed in the adjudication case proceedings, the petitioner did not appear and it did not file its written statement. It also did not lead evidence and did not participate in the proceedings at the stage of hearing. Therefore, the Labour Court was nor in error in proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner.
5. At the same time, having decided to proceed ex-parte, Labour Court could not have absolved itself of its responsibility to record cogent findings on the issue in dispute namely status of the respondent workman, his duties and length of service as also whether he had worked 240 days in one calendar year preceding his disengagement.
6. In the context of the dispute raised before the Labour Court, the burden lay on the respondent workman to first establish master servant relationship by leading cogent evidence in that regard. Here, respondent workman did not rely on any appointment letter. Therefore, it became a case of engagement offered otherwise than through appointment letter. In that fact, the status of the respondent workman became a vital issue to be decided, besides work done for more than 240 days in one calendar year, preceding the disengagement.
7. Merely because the petitioner may not have appeared before the Labour Court did not absolve the respondent workman from the burden to prove those essential facts. In the present case, the Labour Court has only referred to the statement of the workman and rushed to the conclusion that the respondent workman was entitled to the relief of reinstatement.
8. Plainly, the award suffers from the vice of being unreasoned. In a similar situation, learned single judge of this Court in Devyani Beverages Limited Through its Factory Manager S V Singh Vs. Labour Court II; Deputy Labour Commissioner and Devendra Singh Through Om Pal Singh General Secretary, Hind Mazdoor Sabha, 2006 (108) FLR 426, observed as below:
"Accordingly, even though Rule 12(9) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957 provides that if the affidavit accompanying the written statement of the workman is not rebutted by the employer, the Labour Court shall presume the contents of the affidavit to be true and make an award accepting the facts stated in the written statement, but, it cannot thus be construed to mean that the entire averments made in the affidavit, without any documentary or oral evidence, have to be accepted in to to without the Labour Court examining the same judiciously. The labour laws of this country may be welfare legislation which may not require a strict procedure to be followed as held by the Supreme Court in the case of The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. The Employee of the Bharat Bank Ltd. Delhi and the Bharat Bank Employees' Union, Delhi [AIR 1950 SC 188.] , (which has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents) but the same would not mean that the procedure of accepting and relying of evidence before the Court is not to be followed.
In the present case, 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."
9. In view of the above, the impugned award cannot be sustained. It is set aside, subject to payment of costs Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent workman Pradeep Kumar within 30 days from today. The same may be deposited in the Labour Court and may be released in favour of respondent workman. Further, the petitioner is directed to file its written statement and replication within a period of two weeks from that compliance. On that, the respondent workman would be entitled to file his replication statement within a further period of 15 days therefrom. Petitioner shall have limited time to lead evidence within a period of one month from the date of filing of its written statement and replication. Thereafter, the Labour Court may grant the respondent, a limited opportunity (by time), to lead evidence and proceed to hear and decide the matter, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of conclusion of evidence. It is made clear, in the event of non-payment of cost within time granted, the present order shall not be given effect to.
10. Present petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 29.7.2022 Prakhar