The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award that reinstated a workman with full back wages. The Court rejected the petitioners' claim that they had no establishment at the address where the respondent worked.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/2
Chittewan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3452 OF 2002
Shri Nemchand Gutka And Others ... Petitioners Versus Shri Abdul Aziz A. Rehaman Ansari And Another … Respondents
Mr. Shankar Katkar i/b Mr. S.S. Pakale for the Petitioners. Mr. I.R. Kulkarni a/w Mr. Jayesh Gawade for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J.
DATE : 12 AUGUST 2016.
P.C. :
2 The Petition challenges an award passed by the Labour Court at Thane in a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference concerns termination of the first Respondent's services by the Petitioners. The impugned award directs the Petitioners to reinstate the first Respondent-workman with full back wages with effect from 11 March 1999.
3 It is the case of the first Respondent that the Petitioners carried on manufacturing activities at Agrawal Compound, Gala No.4, Karivali Road, Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane; that the first Respondent worked with the Petitioners at this establishment for seven years without any break as a warpar, his last drawn salary being Rs.5,400/- per month; the Petitioners
2/2
Chittewan
had not maintained any record relating to the first Respondent's service; that on 11 March 1999, though the first Respondent had gone to report for his duties as usual, he was not allowed to work; and that this amounted to an oral termination of service of the first Respondent in breach of law. The only defence of the Petitioners was that they did not have any establishment at the address indicated by the first Respondent and that the latter was not employed by them at this address.
4 By the impugned order, the Labour Court rejected the Petitioners' contention that the Petitioners did not carry any business at the address of their establishment mentioned in their reference. Relying on the documentary and oral evidence on record, the Court came to the conclusion that the Petitioners did carry on business at the subject address. The Labour Court also noted that the Petitioners' own witness had deposed that the Petitioners had not kept any records, such as attendance registers, wage registers, leave registers, etc. and they were unable to produce any material which could have raised a doubt on the first Respondent's case of an employer and employee relationship between the parties. The award cannot be said to be either perverse or illegal. It is based on appreciation of evidence before the Court. It cannot be demonstrated that the conclusion is such as no prudent person would have arrived at on the basis of material before him.
5 There is accordingly no merit in the Petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Labour Court's award reinstating the employee.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shri Nemchand Gutka And Others
Shri Abdul Aziz A. Rehaman Ansari
And Another
S.C. Gupte
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
