Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The reference reads as follows (by way of sample):

"Kya Sewayojako Dwara Apne Shramik Jai Veer Singh (Putra Shri Ram Lal), P.H. Recorder Ki Sewae Dinank 6.3.1985 se Samapt Kiya Jana Uchit Tatha/Athwa Vaidhanki Hai? Yadi Nahi, to Sambandhit Shramik Kya Labh/Anutosh (relief) Pane Ka Adhikari Hai, Tatha Kisi Anya Vivran Sahit?"

2. The workmen claimed that they were permanent appointees and the orders of termination were contrary to the provisions of the U.P. Standing Orders.

3. The appellants' case was that it was a seasonal factory which commenced its trial season only in the year 1984-85 and certain persons were taken as casual employees on daily wage basis and they did not have any lien on any permanent or seasonal post as the factory was to commence production after the trial season 1984-85 was over after the establishment of the sugar factory.

5. The award was assailed in writ petition on the grounds that (1) the Labour Court has travelled beyond the terms of reference by framing issue No.1 as the nature of appointment was neither subject matter of reference nor the finding given by it on issue No.1 was correct. (2) There was no evidence on record that the respondent was a workman and was entitled to the protection under the Act. (3) There was no appointment letter filed by the workman, which could show that respondent was not engaged in the trial season. Though it was dis- believed by the Labour Court that appointment of the workman was against a permanent post, yet he was granted the relief of re-instatement with back wages and as such the award cannot be sustained.

12. It was accepted that the workmen belonged to the seasonal category. In the claim petition and the pleadings it was urged that they were permanent workmen. The High Court noted that the workmen were not permanent employees. It was further noted that they failed to establish the nature of their appointment. No appointment orders were filed. It came to an abrupt conclusion that the burden of proof lay on the employer to establish the nature of appointment. The conclusion is clearly contrary to law. The Labour Court found that the workmen were appointed to posts which continued for the whole season and they were appointed on seasonal posts. After having arrived at this conclusion, the Labour Court held that the workmen were entitled to be re-instated.

13. It is interesting to note that the High Court itself noted that the appointment of the workmen was not permanent as the permanent workmen have to complete their probationary period. There was no averment that the workmen had completed their probation period. Undisputedly, 1984-85 was the trial season. It is to be noted that the High Court referred to Rules 4 and 6. They read as follows:

"4. Eligibility for retaining allowance-(i) The above retaining allowance shall be paid to those unskilled seasonal workmen who have or would have worked but, for illness or any other run avoidable cause, in a factory during whole of the second half of the last season preceding, provided that labour employed by or through contractors shall be excluded for purposes of this order.