Allowed

Pratik Panels Th. Its.G.M. v. Plywood Udyog Karmchari Union Aituc

Chhattisgarh HC6 Feb 2012WP/1892/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a Labour Court award, the Court held that the award was erroneous because it was passed without recording a crucial finding on the workman's service duration required under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court set aside the award, directed the Labour Court to conduct an afresh enquiry, and allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The impugned award was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court for decision afresh after recording evidence of both parties.

Pratik Panels Th. Its.G.M. Vs Plywood… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

^-^

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR

¶3

Writ Petition No. 374 of 2003

¶4

PETITIONER:'

¶5

RESPONDENTS:

¶6

General Manager, Prateek Panels Ltd., Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Versus

¶7

Rajya Up Mahasachiv, Plywood Udyog Karmchari Union & another

¶8

AND

¶9

Writ Petition No. 1892 of 2003

¶10

(^ PETITIONER: Pratik Panals Limited, through its General Manager, Raipur (CG) Versus

¶11

RESPONDENT:

¶12

Plywood Udyog Karmachari Union

¶13

POST FOR ORDER ON O €>'1"FEBRUARY, 2012

¶14

Sd//-

¶15

prashantKumarMishra Judge

¶16

'-^

¶17

^^
"t.y/

¶18

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶19

Writ PetitionNo. 374 of 2003

¶20

PETITIONER: General Manager, Prateek Panels Ltd., Raipur, District Raipur (CG) Versus RESPONDENTS: Rajya Up Mahasachiv, Plywood Udyog Karmchari Union & another

¶21

AND

¶22

Writ Petition No.1892 of2003

¶23

PETITIONER: Pratik Panals Limited, throu. l^its General Manager, Raipur (C3) Versys

¶24

RESPONDENT: Plywood Udyog Karmachari Union

¶25

Present:

¶26

Shri Alok Dewangan, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sushobhit Singh, counsel for the respondent.

¶27

ORDER

¶28

(Passed on G^ February, 2012)

¶29

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J.

¶30

The aforesaid writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order.

¶31

Writ Petition No. 1892/2003 has been preferred by the employer challenging the award passed by the Labour Court whereas W.P. No.374/2003 has been preferred challenging the order passed on 7-1-2003 closing the petitioner's right to lead evidence, however, since no interim order was passed in this writ petition, which remained pending and in the meanwhile, reference itself was finally

¶32

^adjudicated, the said Writ Petition No.374/2003 has been rendered

¶33

¶34

infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed as having become

¶35

infructuous.

¶36

^^^'

¶37

The Union raised a dispute regarding illegal termination of the workmen on which conciliation proceedings were initiated, however, on failure of the conciliation, the matter was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. As per the statement of claim submitted by the Union, the workmen was appointed against the permanent post on 5-5-1989 as Purchase Clerk in the establishment ofthe petitioner on monthly salary of Rs.1220/- and worked continuously in service without any brfeak for more than 240 days in each calendar year till date when he was terminated on 17-2-1995. It was alleged that the said termination is contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') because before terminating his services, no notice or salary in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation was paid to the workmen, which is mandatory under Section 25-F of the Act. The petitioner submitted written statement, inter alia, submitting that the workmen himself left the job on his own, therefore, there was no occasion for issuance of notice or salary in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation, however, the petitioner admitted the fact that the workmen was employed in its establishment.

¶38

In course of enquiry, the Labour Court examined the workmen, however, the petitioner could not examine any witness because by order passed on 7-1-2003, its right to lead evidence was already closed. The Labour Court ultimately passed the impugned award

¶39

'directing reinstatement of the workmen with 50% back wages.

¶40

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that proper opportunity for adducing evidence was not afforded by the Labour Court, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the entire matter deserves to be remanded back for making an enquiry afresh. He

¶42

would submit that the workmen has not led any evidence in support of his case that he had completed 240 daysofservice in a calendar year and jn fact, there is no finding recorded by the Labour Court in this regard.

¶43

On the other» hand.learned counsel for the respondent has supported the award and argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is called for.

¶44

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties at lengtli and has perused the papers annexed with the writ petition and return as well as record of the Labour Court.

¶45

This Court shall first deal with the contention on behalf of the petitioner^{aboutfailureoftheworkmento} prove^{thathehadworked} for 240 days in a calendar year immediately preceding the date of termination.

¶46

To consider this argument, the pleadings and. the evidence of the workmen are required to be seen. In para-1 and 3 of the statfcment of claim, averments have been made that he was appointed on 5-51989 and worked continuously without any break for more than 240 days every year till 17-2-1995 when he was illegally terminated. The petitioner/employer admitted in para-1 of statement of claim except

¶47

^
ise.

¶48

for the date of appointment, however, the contents of para-Softhe statement of claim were denied. Therefore, once pleading with regardto having worked for 240days every year has been denied in the written statement, it was for the workmen to prove by way of leading cogent evidence to discharge his initial burden calling upon other party to lead evidence to discharge the burden which has shifted on theemployer to disprove the claim/evidence raised by the workmen in this regard. In his statement, workmen Shri Ashwini Mishra has stated that he worked continuously from June, 1989 to 16-2-1995, hpwever, he has not stated anything either in examination-in-chief or in cross-examjnation that he worked for 240 days or more in jmmediately preceding calendar year. Thus, the workmen appears to have failed to discharge initial burden to prove that he worked for 240 days or more in immediately preceding calendar year.

¶49

In the matter of Ranip Nagar Palika Vs. Babuji Gabhaji Thakore and Ors1, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that burden to prove that he worked for 240 days in immediately preceding calendar year is on the workmen and when the award was passed without recording the finding in this regard, the award has to be set aside.

¶50

In the present case also, after narrating the case of the parties, the Labour Court discussed the evidence in para-7 of the award, however, in the entire paragraph, there is no finding as to whether

¶51

^ the workmen has worked for 240 days in immediately preceding

¶52

1 2008 AIRSCW 449

¶53

~E "'^ J ^- ^ ^^,^

¶54

calendar year. Recording of this finding is necessary in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment.

¶55

"'•'p.yA^.^

¶56

In view of the above, the impugned award deserves to be set aside and the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Labour Court for decision afresh. Accordingly, the impugned award is set aside. Since the matter is remanded back, it is directed that in course of enquiry, the Labour Court shall record evidence of the workmen and that of the employer and shall also direct the employer to produce entire record for the relevant period wherein atter>r(ahce of the workmen was recorded. The enquiries shall be completed within a period of 6 months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Record of the Labour Court be sent back forthwith.

¶57

With the above observation, the writ petition is allowed.

¶58

prasban^{.^^stea} judge

¶59

Barve

Pratik Panels Th. Its.G.M. v. Plywood Udyog Karmchari Union Aituc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratik Panels Th. Its.G.M. v. Plywood Udyog Karmchari Union Aituc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Naaz Asife Shekh Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Shweta Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ku.Zaibunnisha Rizvi Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt.Rekha Lal Vs State and Ors.

Hakimuddin Vs Pt.Ravi Shankar Shukla Univ.and Ors.

Jai Prakash Khalkho and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.