AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India has been preferred seeking to assail the award
Annex.1 dated 25.1.2001 passed by the Labour Court cum
Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur in Industrial Dispute Case
No.307/1990 rejecting the labour claim of the late
petitioner Shri Gajendra Singh who passed away during
pendency of the writ petition and thus, his legal heirs were
allowed to be taken on record.
The petitioner late Gajendra Singh was allegedly
employed as a Supervisor cum Salesman on 1.3.1986 in the
respondent Mewar Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur having its
industrial unit at Badgaon, Udaipur. A case is set up that he
was continuously serving on the said post when he was
transferred to the company''s unit at Jaipur and then was
recalled to Udaipur. He formed a new trade union named
Mewar Majdoor Sangh upon which the existing trade union
and management were displeased and consequently, the
petitioner''s entry in the industrial unit was barred from
1.7.1987 onwards. The petitioner contacted the factory
manager Ramkishan who informed him that he had been
terminated on the directions given by the management. The
petitioner requested the management to reinstate him in
service. However, such prayer was not accepted upon which
the petitioner raised an industrial dispute. Conciliation
proceedings were undertaken before the Labour Officer
which failed. The petitioner''s labour dispute was referred to
the Industrial Tribunal, Udaipur for consideration under the
provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (referred to
herein after as ''the ID Act '') where Labour Case
No.307/1990 came to be registered.
A case was set up in the claim petition that the
employee had satisfactorily served the respondent employer
for a period of more than one year and that his termination
was effected without following the mandatory procedure
provided under the ID Act . The principle of last come first
go was breached. No charge-sheet was ever served to the
petitioner and the principles of natural justice were not
followed before terminating his services. He claimed relief
of reinstatement with back wages and continuity in service.
The respondent employer filed reply to the claim
petition wherein it was specifically pleaded that the
petitioner was never engaged by the company. There was
no post of supervisor and salesman in the unit. No payment
of salary was ever made to him. Jaipur Bottling Co. where
the petitioner claims to have been transferred is not
associated with Mewar Bottling Company. The petitioner
was neither transferred to Jaipur nor recalled to Udaipur.
Ramkishan was never posted as Manager but was rather an
Accountant in the Company and was not authorised to issue
any certificate to the petitioner.
The Tribunal framed an issue as to whether removal of
the petitioner from the services of the respondent Mewar
Bottling Co. was justified or not.
The petitioner examined himself in evidence. The
respondent submitted affidavit of one Prakash Kogta in
support of its case and placed on record the attendance
register for the years 1986 to 1987.
The Tribunal after thoroughly appreciating and
evaluating the entire material available on record, came to
a conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish by even
semblance of evidence that he had been engaged as a
workman in the respondent unit. The only piece of evidence
which the petitioner placed on record of the Tribunal was by
way of his signatures in the gate entry register and the
sales book. The Tribunal held that there was no evidence to
show that in what capacity, the petitioner appended these
signatures. The experience certificate Ex.1 was discarded as
being unreliable. An inference was drawn by the Tribunal
that the petitioner might have been engaged in the work of
transportation and his signatures could have been taken in
such capacity in the gate register and the sales book. The
petitioner failed to produce any proof by way of salary slips
etc. to show that he had been engaged on the rolls of the
respondent industrial unit. Holding thus, the Tribunal
rejected the claim of the petitioner vide the impugned
award Annex.1 dated 25.1.2001 with the specific finding
that the petitioner failed to prove his engagement as a
workman in the respondent industrial unit. Thereupon, the
instant writ petition came to be preferred by the petitioner
before this Court for challenging the Labour Court''s award.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged
that the petitioner was engaged as a supervisor cum
salesman in the respondent industrial unit. He discharged
his initial onus of proving his employment with the
respondent employer. Thereafter, the burden shifted on the
employer to prove the contrary which did not discharge this
burden. He urged that the impugned order passed by the
Tribunal rejecting the petitioner''s claim petition is illegal and
arbitrary and thus should be quashed and set aside.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
employer vehemently opposed the submissions advanced
by the petitioner''s counsel. He contended that the petitioner
could not prove by reliable evidence that he was ever
engaged as supervisor cum salesman in the respondent
industry. He vehemently contended that as a matter of fact,
there is no such post in the respondent industry at all. The
petitioner miserably failed to discharge the initial burden of
proving his employment with the respondent industry. He
supported the impugned award and urged that the writ
petition should be dismissed as being devoid of merit.
I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar
and have perused the material available on record.
The petitioner claims to be engaged as a Supervisor
cum Salesman in the respondent unit from 1.3.1986
onwards. However, admittedly no document so as to prove
such appointment was placed on record by the petitioner.
Neither any salary slip nor copy of any attendance register
was brought on record of the Tribunal''s proceedings so as to
prove that the petitioner had ever been employed as a
supervisor cum salesman in the respondent industry. As the
petitioner failed to discharge the initial burden cast upon
him to prove his status as a workman in the respondent
industry, therefore, there was no occasion for the
respondents to lead any evidence to disprove something
which never was established. It may be noted that the
labour claim came to be instituted after a delay of 3 years
and by the time evidence was recorded, a period of nearly 6
years had lapsed. The respondent produced the attendance
registers for the relevant period on record and the
petitioner''s name is not recorded therein. As per the
respondents, the other documents for the relevant period
were destroyed in routine course. The certificate Ex.1 was
totally unreliable as apart from having been issued by
unauthorised person, it did not reflect in what capacity was
the petitioner engaged with the respondent. Plea taken by
the employer in this regard was accepted by the Tribunal
and rightly so in my opinion. The gate entry register and
sales book which were exhibited by the petitioner to prove
his case only indicate that he might have been working as a
transporter and that is why, his signatures were taken in
the gate register and sales book.
In view of the discussion made herein above, this
Court is in complete agreement with the finding recorded by
the Tribunal in the impugned award that the petitioner
failed to prove his employment as a workman in the
respondent industrial unit. Thus, there was no occasion for
the termination of his services. The impugned award, ex-
facie does not suffer from any error, either factual or legal,
so as to require interference in exercise of the extraordinary
writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Consequently, the instant writ petition, being devoid of
any merit, is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost.