AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. Mishra, learned advocate, for Mr. Singh, learned advocate for the petitioners, and Mr. Jani, learned advocate for the respondent No.1.
In this group of petitions, the petitioners claimants are aggrieved by the award dated 1.8.2009 passed in Reference (LCG) Nos.564 of 2000 to 569 of 2000 whereby learned Labour Court rejected the reference cases.
So far as factual background is concerned, it has emerged from the record and from submissions by learned advocates for the contesting parties that the petitioners herein raised industrial dispute with the allegations that the opponent employer terminated their service without following procedure prescribed by law and in violation of principle of natural justice. Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication. The dispute came to be registered as Reference (LCG) Nos.564 of 2000 to 569 of 2000. The claimants filed their respective statements of claim before the learned Labour Court wherein they alleged that they were working with the board as Helper. They also alleged that though they worked continuously and regularly, the board issued appointment orders for 29 days and they were continued in service with artificial breaks of one or two days after every 29 days. They also alleged that they had worked for more than 240 days, however, their service came to be illegally terminated and that therefore, they are entitled for reinstatement with backwages and other benefits.
3.1 The opponent employer opposed the reference cases on the ground of delay. The employer contended that the claimants had raised dispute after gross delay of more than 10 years and that therefore, the reference cases should be rejected. The board also contended that the claimants were engaged on daily wage basis and that therefore, they are not entitled for any relief claimed by them in the reference cases.
3.2 After the parties completed their pleadings, the learned Labour Court received evidence from the claimants and the opponent board. Upon conclusion of the stage of evidence, the learned Labour Court heard rival submissions by contesting parties and thereafter, the learned Labour Court passed impugned awards and rejected the reference cases.
At the time of hearing of present petitions, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the learned Labour Court rejected the reference cases on singular ground viz. that the claimants failed to prove the date of termination. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioners ? claimants submitted that the claimants had mentioned specific date ? with regard to their termination in their oral evidence, however, the learned Labour Court did not take oral evidence into account and on the basis of averments made in the statement of claims, the learned Labour Court rejected the reference cases with the observation that in the statement of claims, the claimants merely mentioned the year in which their service came to be terminated but the claimants did not clarify exact date and month in which their service were allegedly terminated. He submitted that the learned Labour Court ought to have taken into account specific assertion by the claimants in their oral evidence and should not have rejected the reference cases only on said singular ground. Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that therefore, the reference cases deserve reconsideration / fresh consideration by learned Labour Court.
Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent board submitted that the learned Labour Court has not committed any error, inasmuch as in the statement of claims and in oral evidence, the claimants mentioned different dates so far as the allegation about termination from service is concerned. He submitted that the learned Labour Court considered the said anomaly and having regard to such discrepancy in the evidence, the learned Labour Court rejected the reference and that therefore, the awards do not suffer from any error. Learned advocate for the respondent board also submitted that the claimants raised dispute after inordinate and gross delay and that therefore also, the reference cases deserve to be rejected.
In this context, it is relevant to note that while the learned Labour Court seems to have not taken into account the specific details mentioned by the claimants in their oral evidence so far as date and reason for termination is concerned at the same time, learned Labour Court also seems to have failed to take into account the evidence in its entirety and instead, the learned Labour Court appears to have concentrated on limited aspects i.e. averments in the statements of claim without having regard to oral evidence and also having regard to the fact that the opponent employer did not come out with any specific explanation in response to the allegations (by the claimants) about termination of the services of the claimants.
It is pertinent that it has emerged from the awards that in its written statement, the employer did not mention any specific date when the service of the respective claimants were discontinued. The employer adopted a very vague and unclear stand and defence without clarifying as to whether it had terminated the claimants or not. Without contending that the services are / were not terminated, the Board maintained silence about the date on which the service of the claimants came to end as well as about the reason and mode of termination. The employer opposed the reference cases only on ground of delay. 7.1 When the employer did not mention either in the written statement or the evidence as to whether it had terminated the service of the claimants or not, or whether claimants had stopped reporting for duty or the date from which the service of respective claimants came to end, then, there is little justification for learned Labour Court to dismiss the reference cases only on ground that the claimants have not mentioned specific date about termination in the statements of claim, more so when the claimants mentioned certain dates in the oral evidence.
The reference case ought have been adjudicated fully completely i.e. on all issues and entire evidence of both sides should have been recorded and considered evaluated and proper findings based on evidence and supported by reasons should have been recorded in respect of all contentions (of both sides) and all issues and on merits. The reference cases should not have been closed and rejected on said singular ground.
7.2 Since aforesaid aspects are not considered by the learned Labour Court, the matters deserve reconsideration and the learned counsel for the claimants is justified in his request that the matters deserve to be remanded to learned Labour Court.
7.3 Above mentioned defect and error could not be refuted or explained by learned advocate for the respondent and the learned advocate for the respondent also could not effectively oppose the request to remand the cases.
Therefore, following order is passed:[ a] The awards dated 1.8.2009 passed in Reference (LCG) Nos.564 of 2000 to 569 of 2000 are set aside on above mentioned ground and matters are remanded to learned Labour Court for fresh hearing and decision. [b] It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any view on merits of the case. This Court has also not expressed any view with regard to the evidence of the claimants or the awards and/or about the rival contentions. This Court has also not expressed any opinion with regard to alleged date of termination. The said and other connected aspects including the aspect with regard to alleged delay in raising industrial dispute shall be considered by learned Labour Court afresh in light of evidence available on record, however, without being influenced by impugned awards.
[c] The learned Labour Court shall decide the reference cases afresh after granting opportunity of hearing to the claimants and the opponent board, including opportunity to lead fresh evidence as may be considered necessary by both sides.
[d] It is also clarified that all contentions of both sides are kept open.
With aforesaid observations, direction and clarifications, present petitions are partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to aforesaid extent.