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.