Writ petition challenging dismissal of industrial dispute reference. Court held failure to prove employment relationship with the Department bars claim under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Petition dismissed.
No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed; miscellaneous petition disposed of.
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.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.6215 of 2001
ORDER:
The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the competent authority of the Government of India stating that he was engaged as a Sweeper in the Velerpet Telephone Exchange from 1990 onwards and that he was entrusted with the work of sweeping 48 quarters between 8-00 AM and 6-00 PM on a daily wage of Rs.18/-. He alleged that the Assistant Engineer, by name, Prakash Rao, asked him not to attend the duties from February 1996 onwards and that the procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act (for short ‘the Act’) was not followed. On being satisfied that there exists a dispute, the 2nd respondent referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal – cum – Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, which was taken as ITID No.28 of 1998. The petitioner pleaded the same facts that gave rise to the reference.
2. On behalf of the 1st respondent, it was pleaded that the petitioner was not employed in any capacity by the Department and that he has been engaged as a sweeper by the occupants of the 48 quarters in the locality. It was also mentioned that the daily wages to the petitioner were being paid from the contributions of the occupants of the quarters. Through its award, dated 11-09-2000, the Labour Court refused to grant any relief t the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition.
3. Heard Sri V.S.R. Anajaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. V. Sarada, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and learned Additional Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent.
4. The Industrial Dispute is raised under Section 2 of the Act by the petitioner alleging that he was terminated from service by the 1st respondent in contravention of Section 25F of the Act.
5. The basic ingredients to establish the case of wrongful termination are that (a) the workman must establish the fact that he has been engaged by the employer; (b) he was in continuous service of 240 days in such employment; and (c) he has been terminated from the employment without any notice or payment of salary in lieu of notice. It is not necessary that there must exist a written order of appointment to prove the first factor. In a given case, oral engagement can also be established by examining the witnesses or by filing documentary evidence.
6. In the instant case, the 1st respondent has categorically denied the plea of the petitioner that he has been engaged as a sweeper. The further fact pleaded by the 1st respondent is that the petitioner was engaged by the occupants of the quarters. Except that the petitioner has deposed as WW-1, he did not examine any other witnesses. The documentary evidence being Exs.W-1 to W-4 do not have any bearing upon the appointment of the petitioner. It is almost in the form of communications or minutes of conciliation, or the failure report. On the other hand, the respondents filed before the Labour Court, the receipts of wages marked as Exs.M-1 to M-14, which are to the effect that the wages were paid by and on behalf of the occupants of the quarters. Once, the petitioner failed to establish the employment, the further question as to whether he worked for 240 days or the termination was in contravention of Section 25 (f) of the Act, do not arise.
7. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The miscellaneous petition filed in this writ petition also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
July 19, 2012.
KTL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner established that he was engaged by the Department as a sweeper for the purpose of termination remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Petitioner
The Department
The Government of India
L. NARASIMHA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
