Inarco Limited vs Harishbhai Arvindbhai Andhariya

Honourable Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi

1.0 INARCO Limited - a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is before this Court being aggrieved by award and order dated 26th May 2011, passed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No. 338 of 2000. The learned Judge was pleased to partly allow the Reference and direct the present petitioner to reinstate the workman - respondent herein on his original post with continuity of service with 20% back wages and all other incidental benefits..

2.0 The matter was argued by learned senior advocate Mr. MR Bhatt with Ms. Mauna M. Bhatt for the petitioner. On 22nd September, the Court issued Rule and also Notice as to interim relief returnable on 14th October 2011. Ad-interim relief was granted in terms of Para 8(C). Relevant part of the order reads as under:

Heard learned senior advocate Mr.M.R. Bhatt for Mrs.Mauna M. Bhatt for the petitioner. The learned advocate invited attention of the Court to award and order dated 26th May 2011 passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No.338 of 2000, whereby the learned Judge of the Labour Court has allowed the reference in part and ordered reinstatement with 20% back wages with continuity of service on his original post. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondent workman was a ''badli'' worker, but the present petitioner could not raise all these contentions before the learned Judge of the Labour Court. He submitted that this is a pure question of law which can be looked into by this Court.

(emphasis supplied)

2.1 The learned senior advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to page 28. It is a communication dated 20th February 1997, wherein, the opening paragraph states that, ''in our company''s factory, work is going on in three shifts and in all, 178 workers are working. In the event, any worker remains absent, the company needs ''badli worker'' and for such ''badli work'', on your application (dated nil), you are given an appointment as a ''badli worker'' in the factory of the company on the following terms and conditions...''. The learned senior advocate for the petitioner specifically mentioned that, this document was very much before the learned Judge of the Labour Court. It was as ''exh. 11''. Despite that, the learned Judge did not take note of the fact that the respondent - workman was a ''badli worker''.

2.2 The learned senior advocate for the petitioner submitted that one of the terms and conditions of appointment of the respondent - workman was that, ''on account of respondent - workman working as a ''badli worker'', he will not accrue any right to get the work or he will not get a right to have work on permanent basis or that, he will not be having any right or claim that the company shall provide him work on permanent basis''.

2.3 The learned senior advocate for the petitioner also invited attention of the Court to the Reply filed by the present petitioner before the learned Judge of the Labour Court being exh. 5, a copy of which is produced at Annexure ''C'' to this petition, wherein, in Para 1, it is mentioned that, ''the applicant (present respondent - workman) had executed the appointment letter after putting his signature''. In Para 2 of the said Reply, it was specifically mentioned that ''the contents of Para 2 of Statement of Claim are not true and the applicant (present respondent - workman) was appointed only as a ''badli worker''. In Para 6 of the Reply also it was mentioned that ''the applicant (present respondent - workman) was not the permanent worker but was a ''badli worker'' and therefore, there is no question of taking him back in job''.

2.4 As against this, learned advocate Mr. Kotia for the respondent - workman strenuously argued that this is not a case, which requires interference at the hands of this Court. He read over entire affidavit in reply emphasizing different paragraphs of the same and that of present petition is not maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

3.0 Though it was specifically put to the learned advocate for the respondent - workman that whether the document produced at page 28 to this petition - exh. 11 was before the learned Judge of the Labour Court, the learned advocate for the respondent - workman is not able to deny that fact. It is then put to the learned advocate for the respondent - workman as to in what manner, the learned Judge has taken note of the fact that the appointment of the respondent - workman as a ''badli worker'', the learned advocate has no explanation for the same. The learned advocate for the respondent - workman insisted that the present petition should not be entertained in light of the fact that the workman was appointed on 19th February 1997 in ''Maintenance Branch'' and has worked throughout as the worker till 24th November 1999.

3.1 This is no answer to the query put by the Court. The question, which is considered by the Court in the present petition is, whether the respondent - workman was appointed as a ''badli worker'' or a ''regular worker'', which is clear from the appointment letter itself and this fact was though pleaded before the learned Judge of the Labour Court, the same is not taken note of and that being so, the matter requires to be allowed.

3.2 The learned advocate for the respondent - workman submitted that the petitioner herein cannot be permitted additional evidence, even if the petition is either under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned advocate for the respondent - workman is not able to point out as to which additional evidence, he is referring to. Similarly, he is not able to point out as to which new evidence is placed on record by the petitioner which was not placed before the learned Judge of the Labour Court, as mentioned in Para 26 of the affidavit in reply. Similarly, the learned advocate for the respondent - workman is not able to point as to which documents were executed by the petitioner on the papers which are alleged to have been got signed by the petitioner, while they were ''blank''. Only to make allegation that the petitioner - employer got the signature of the workman on ''blank'' papers, is not enough. One has to point out as to after obtaining the signature of the workman on a ''blank'' paper, a particular document was got executed by the employer on that paper so as to see that the workman is rendered remediless. The learned advocate for the respondent - workman is not able to point out any such document, which according to him, he did not sign and is later on got executed by the employer on the ''blank'' paper, on which, signature of the respondent - workman was obtained.

4.0 Having appreciated the rival contentions of both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that, in light of the fact that the learned Judge of the Labour Court has erred in appreciating the document, most material - exh. 11 - appointment letter, a copy of which is produced at Page 28 of this petition and the contents of Reply filed to the Statement of Claim, the award cannot be allowed to stand and the same is hereby quashed and set aside.

4.1 This Court is of the opinion that the matter requires to be remitted back to the learned Judge of the Labour Court to decide the same afresh, after taking into consideration the contents of the documents produced by the petitioner - employer and the Reply filed by the petitioner - employer, in accordance with law. It goes without saying that, the learned Judge, when it comes to decide the matter, will decide the matter strictly in accordance with law, after giving full opportunity to both the sides to put their case.

4.2 Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.