The Common respondent to five writ petitions filed by different petitioners against the awards made by the Industrial Tribunal on June 20, 1998 in the Allahbad High Court, appealed against the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court . The five writ petitioner – respondents (the workmen) raised a dispute relating to their retrenchment stating that the present petitioner, Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd., appointed them between the years 1987-1991. They claimed that while they had worked continuously from the date of their appointment for more than 240 days in a calendar year, they were illegally retrenched from service in violation of the provisions of section 6-N of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act,1947(hereinafter , ‘the U.P. Act’) The State Government eventually referred this dispute to the Tribunal under section 4-K of the U.P. Act to determine whether the termination of services of these workmen was just or illegal.
The workmen –respondents supported their contention by saying that alongside continuously working from the date of their appointment till their services were terminated, they had been allowed grade number, provident fund (PF) number and other service benefits they were entitled. But when they demanded other benefits to which they were entitled, their services were terminated without any notice or compensation, in violation of the requirement under section 6-N of the U.P. Act. Thus, they claimed reinstatement in service with back wages . However, the employer-petitioner claimed that the real dispute was with regard to their claim for regularization of their services as they were only casual and temporary hands employed in the seasonal sugar industry and not the termination of their services as none of them had worked for 240 days in last 12 calendar months immediately preceding their alleged date of termination.
While the respondents submitted bonus slips, wage slips, deduction of PF slips and attendance cards for various months, they requested the present petitioner to produce certain documents like the attendance register, payment of bonus records, and some other documents pertaining to the engagement of respondents as workmen under it that were in its custody . The petitioner submitted only that extract of attendance records of the last 12 months immediately preceding the date of retrenchment from which it was evident that none of the workmen had worked beyond 240 days during the said period. Convinced that the petitioner did not keep such records relating to temporary hand and relying on the documents that had been produced before them., the Tribunal concluded that the workers had failed to put in the required 240 working days in the calendar year preceding their termination from service. Aggrieved by this award, the workmen-respondents filed separate writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court praying for quashing of the impugned award and reinstatement of their service with back wages.
The High Court decreed in favour of the workmen while drawing an adverse inference against the petitioner for non- production of all the documents in its possession under section 114 illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The High Court held that the petitioner had failed to discharge the onus and disprove the workmen’s claim.
The Supreme Court , upholding the decision of the High Court, stated that the conclusion was based on the understanding of the expression ‘continuous service’ as used in section 6-N read with section 2(g) of the U.P. Act (which is the law applicable to the instant petitions) vis-a-vis its usage under section 25-B(2)(a)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947(hereinafter, ‘the Central Act’) . Unlike the Central Act , the definition under the U.P. Act, the word ‘preceding’ has not been used. Consequently the U.P. Act does not require the workman to prove that he had worked 240 days continuously only during the preceding period of 12 months prior to termination of his services. The workman was only entitled to show that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year for any year prior to termination of his services as the U.P. Act did not confine period only the year immediately preceding the termination. This interpretation stems from the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd v. Ramanuj Yadav [(2003) 8 SCC 334]. The present petitioners , by submitting only those records immediately preceding the date of retrenchment , describing the records of the earlier years as irrelevant and not producing them before the court, withheld the best evidence, allowing the High Court to correctly draw an adverse inference against them. The workmen were successful in discharging their initial onus by producing the documents in their possession. In this context the Supreme Court held the case of Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani[(2002) 3 SCC 25], which accused the management from discharging their burden of proof, to be bad in law that was watered down by the case of R.M. Yelati vs Assistant Executive Engineer[(2006) 1 SCC 106], wherein it was determined that once the workman discharges his burden once he has stepped in to the witness box and adduced cogent evidence , both oral and documentary. .
Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. Mahak Singh &Others [(2007) 4 SCC 94].
The workmen –respondents supported their contention by saying that alongside continuously working from the date of their appointment till their services were terminated, they had been allowed grade number, provident fund (PF) number and other service benefits they were entitled. But when they demanded other benefits to which they were entitled, their services were terminated without any notice or compensation, in violation of the requirement under section 6-N of the U.P. Act. Thus, they claimed reinstatement in service with back wages . However, the employer-petitioner claimed that the real dispute was with regard to their claim for regularization of their services as they were only casual and temporary hands employed in the seasonal sugar industry and not the termination of their services as none of them had worked for 240 days in last 12 calendar months immediately preceding their alleged date of termination.
While the respondents submitted bonus slips, wage slips, deduction of PF slips and attendance cards for various months, they requested the present petitioner to produce certain documents like the attendance register, payment of bonus records, and some other documents pertaining to the engagement of respondents as workmen under it that were in its custody . The petitioner submitted only that extract of attendance records of the last 12 months immediately preceding the date of retrenchment from which it was evident that none of the workmen had worked beyond 240 days during the said period. Convinced that the petitioner did not keep such records relating to temporary hand and relying on the documents that had been produced before them., the Tribunal concluded that the workers had failed to put in the required 240 working days in the calendar year preceding their termination from service. Aggrieved by this award, the workmen-respondents filed separate writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court praying for quashing of the impugned award and reinstatement of their service with back wages.
The High Court decreed in favour of the workmen while drawing an adverse inference against the petitioner for non- production of all the documents in its possession under section 114 illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The High Court held that the petitioner had failed to discharge the onus and disprove the workmen’s claim.
The Supreme Court , upholding the decision of the High Court, stated that the conclusion was based on the understanding of the expression ‘continuous service’ as used in section 6-N read with section 2(g) of the U.P. Act (which is the law applicable to the instant petitions) vis-a-vis its usage under section 25-B(2)(a)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947(hereinafter, ‘the Central Act’) . Unlike the Central Act , the definition under the U.P. Act, the word ‘preceding’ has not been used. Consequently the U.P. Act does not require the workman to prove that he had worked 240 days continuously only during the preceding period of 12 months prior to termination of his services. The workman was only entitled to show that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year for any year prior to termination of his services as the U.P. Act did not confine period only the year immediately preceding the termination. This interpretation stems from the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd v. Ramanuj Yadav [(2003) 8 SCC 334]. The present petitioners , by submitting only those records immediately preceding the date of retrenchment , describing the records of the earlier years as irrelevant and not producing them before the court, withheld the best evidence, allowing the High Court to correctly draw an adverse inference against them. The workmen were successful in discharging their initial onus by producing the documents in their possession. In this context the Supreme Court held the case of Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani[(2002) 3 SCC 25], which accused the management from discharging their burden of proof, to be bad in law that was watered down by the case of R.M. Yelati vs Assistant Executive Engineer[(2006) 1 SCC 106], wherein it was determined that once the workman discharges his burden once he has stepped in to the witness box and adduced cogent evidence , both oral and documentary. .
Sriram Industrial Enterprises Ltd. vs. Mahak Singh &Others [(2007) 4 SCC 94].
For any query:-
09896868668
deepakmiglani@hotmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment