State of Haryana versus Ramesh Kumar

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947'- Termination order- Claim bf workman that he completed 240 days of service.:.. Award by_ c^{Labour Court that termination order illegal:....}^Challengeto- Summary dismissal ·of writ petition by High Court - Sustainability of - Held:· High Court should have given a reasaned order indicative of its application of mind - Absence of reasons rendered the order unsustainable - More so, onus wa~ on workman to prove that he' worked continuously for 240 D days in the year preceding his termination and also 'had to adduce evidence for the same - Thus, order of High Court set aside - Matter remitted to High Court· for fresh consideration - Judgment/Order - Reasoned order - Requirement of

¶14

D

¶15

,.. "'"""'" f- f

¶16

E The. res.pond.ent was engaged in the Public ··Works Department in December 1991. He continued to work upto 31.3.1993. Thereafter, he was terminated from service~ The Lab9~r Court passed an award that the termination was not sustainable since the ·respondent tiad completed 240 F days of service in- fhe year preceding his termination. Appeila.nt-State challenged the award. High Court dismissed the writ petition summarily. Hence the present appeal.

¶17

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

¶18

G

¶19

·HELD: 1.1-. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, alf the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The

862

I ~ ~ '- ' ~ :

H

STATE OF HARYANA v. RAMESH KUMAR

¶24

863

¶25

absence of reasons rendered the order of High Court not A sustainable. [Para 6] [865-G, 866-A]

¶26

..... ~

¶27

• _..;,

¶28

State of UP v. Battan and Ors 2001 (10) SCC 607; State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan AIR 1982 SC 1215; Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. 1987 (2) SCC 222 - relied on.

¶29

B

¶30

1.2 Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the· controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording rea- c sons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indis0 pensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least . sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter , before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out ' reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking E out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily in- ' congruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. [Para 7f [866-D,E,FG]

¶31

State of Punjab v. Bhag Singh 2004(1) SCC 547; Suga , F Ram @ Chhuga Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2006 (8) sec 641 - relied on.

¶32

Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union 1971 (1) All E.R. 1148; Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree 1974 LCR 120 - referred to.

¶33

G

¶34

1.3 Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by this Court, cannot be forsaken, under any pret~.d by any authority or Court, be it even the Highest Court in a State, oblivious to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, H

¶35

864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶36

[2008) 10 S.C.R.

¶37

"

¶38

A 1950. [Para 6] [866-B,C]

¶39

2.1 The principle that the burden of proof lies on the workman to show that he had worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment and it is for the ·workman to adduce evidence apart 8 from examining himself to prove the factum of his being in employment of the employer. [Para 11] [867-G]

¶40

'y ...

¶41

Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd. 1981 (3) SCC 225; Range Forest Officer v. S. T Hadimani 2002 (3) SCC 25; c^{_Rajasthan State Ganganagar_S.}^{Mills Ltd.v.State of Rajasthan} 2004 (8) SCC 161; Municipal Corpn., Faridabad v. Siri Niwas 2004 (8).SCC 195; M.P Electricity Board v. Hariram 2004 (8) sec 246; Surendrangar District Panchayat and Anr. VS. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 (8) SCC 450 - relied on.

¶42

D 3. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration in accordance with law. [Para 13] [868-A,B]

¶43

-.,..._

¶44

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4325 E^{of 2008}

¶45

From the Judgment and final Order dated 14/3/2005 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 575 of 2004

¶46

F

¶47

Manjit Singh and T.V. George for the Appellant. Rishi Malhotra for the Respondent.

¶48

Jo..._ "'Il

¶49

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶50

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

¶51

G 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court summarily dismissing the Civil Writ Petition filed by the_ State. Challenge in the writ petition was to the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour court, U.T. Chandigarh in a reference made unH der Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 (in short the

¶52

~

¶53

STATE OF HARYANA v. RAMESH KUMAR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

¶54

865

¶55

' ~

¶56

'Act'). The respondent claimed that he was working in the office A of the Public Works Department B&R since December 1991 and continued to work upto 31⁵¹ March, 1993. He claimed to have completed 240 days of service and to have drawn the salary. The allegation was that without any justifiable reason his services were terminated w.e. f. 31.3.1993. A civil suit was filed B tor mandatory injunction against the department. The Depart-: ment took the view that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Subsequently, demand notice was issued and the matter was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that the alleged termination was not sustainable. The c Labour Court took the view that since the workman was engaged in December, 1991 and worked upto 31.1.1993 he is presumed to have completed 240 days of service. Therefore, provision of Section 25 of the Act was not complied with.

¶57

• -4

¶58

Writ Petition was filed by the appellant questioning carrectness of the award which was dismissed summarily as noted above.

¶59

D

¶60

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Labour Court did not take note of the fact that the claim petition E was made after about 5 years of the alleged termination. The 1 High Court should not have dismissed the writ petition in a summary manner without indicating any reason. It was further sub- · mitted that the respondent had not completed 240 days of service within 12 calendar months preceding the alleged date of termination. The award of 50% back wages with a direction of^F re-instatement therefore cannot be sustained.

¶61

.~

¶62

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the burden is on the employer to show that the · concerned employee had not completed 240 days of service.

¶63

G

¶64

Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an applica- · tion of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered

¶65

H

¶66

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶67

[2008] 10 S.C.R

¶68

t ,

¶69

A the High Court order not sustainable. Similar view was expressed in State of UP v. Battan and Ors (2001 (10) SCC 607). About two decades back in State of Maharashtra v. Vithal Rao Pritirao Chawan (Al R 1982 SC 1215) the desirability of a speaking order while dealing with an application for grant of s leave was highlighted. The requirement of indicating reasons in such cases has been judicially recognized as imperative. The view was re-iterated in Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh and Ors. (1987 (2) SCC 222). Judicial discipline to abide by declaration of law by this Court, cannot be forsaken, under any preC text by any authority or Court, be it even the Highest Court in a State, oblivious to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the 'Constitution').

¶70

)' ,

¶71

Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971 (1) D All E.R. 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controE versy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or F exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone G against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance.

¶72

These aspects were highlighted in State of Punjab v. H Bhag Singh (2004(1) SCC 547) and Suga Ram @ Chhuga

¶73

867

¶74

..

¶75

STATE OF HARYANA v. RAMESH KUMAR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

¶76

"""

¶77

Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (2006 (8) s.cc 641 ).

¶78

In Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd. (1981 (3) SCC 225), it is said by this Court that before a workman can claim retrenchment not being in consonance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, he has to show that he has been in con-:tinuous seNice for not less than one year with the employer who had retrenched him from seNice.

¶79

A

¶80

B

¶81

In Range 'Forest Officer v. S. T Hadimani (2002 (3) SCC 25) this Court held that: (SCC p. 26, para 3)

¶82

/ ...

¶83

.. _;

¶84

"In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the^c onus on the management without first determining on the. basis of congent evidence tha_t the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination. It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant. It was D then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had· in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination. Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement· in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion · E that a workman had, in fact, worked for 240 days in a year .. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order or record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman. On this ground alone, the award is liable to be set aside." F

¶85

F

¶86

This Court again in Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. : Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (2004 (8) SCC 161 ), Municipal Corpn., Faridabad v. Sin· Niwas (2001 (8) SCC 195) and MP Electricity Boara v. Hariram (2004 (8) SCC 246), has reiterated the principle that the burden of proof lies on the workman^G to show that he had worked conti.nuously for 240 days in the: preceding one year prior to his alleged retrenchment and it is for the workman to adduce evidence apart from examining himself to prove the factum of his being in employment of the emplayer. H

¶87

H

¶88

,

¶89

868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 10 S.C.R. A 12. The position was highlighted in Surendrangar District Panchayat and Anr. vs. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai (2005 (8) SCC 450). 13. In view of the position in law as highlighted by this Court as afore-noted we set aside the impugned order'of the High 8 Court and remit the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Since the matter is pending since long, it would be desirable that the High Court should dispose of the writ petition as early as practicable preferably within 6 months from the date of receipt of this order. c 14. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. N.J. Appeal disposed of.

State of Haryana v. Ramesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana v. Ramesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupinder Singh versus Union Territory of Chandigarh .

Anita Devi and Ors. versus Satyendra Narain Singh and Ors.

State of Rajasthan versus Gulab Singh and Ors.

Madan and Ors. versus State of Madhya Pradesh

Gauri Shankar Prasad and Ors. versus Brahma Nand Singh

State of Madhya Pradesh versus Imrat and Anr.