AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.S. Sirpurkar, J.—Both these writ petitions can be disposed of by this common judgment, since the employer is common and all the cases covered by both these writ petitions are also on the common subject.
Writ Petition No. 2616/92 as also Writ Petition No. 2617/92 have been filed boy the workmen-24 in the first case and 9 in the second; totalling 33 persons, alleging that their appeals filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, under the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''), have been wrongly dismissed. The order passed in Writ Petition No. 2616/92 on 31.7.1992 covers Appeal Nos. 66/87 to 68/87; 70/87 to 78/87; 80/87 to 83/87; 86/87 to 88/87 to 93/87 and 95/87 to 96/87; while the order passed in Writ Petition No. 2617/92 covers Appeal Nos. 53/87 to 56/87; 59/87 to 61/87 to 65/87. All these appellants alleged in their appeals, which were filed under the provisions of section 31 of the Act that they were working with M/s. Vidarbha Tabacco Products Private Limited, respondent No. 1 herein, who were having a Unit at village Sendurwala. All the appeals are common and in all the appeals, it has been alleged that the appellants were workers and the said workers demanded their rights to be paid at the Government rate, on account of which the employer stopped giving the raw material to them and, thus, effecting their dismissal or discharge from the service, as the case may be. The applications are individually filed.
In the appeals covered in Writ Petition No. 2616/92, one Khemraj s/o Dhanraj Sakhare had been shown and joined as a Beedi Supervisor, and it is tried to be contended that he was in-charge of the establishment and the workers were working under him; while in Writ Petition No. 2617/92, a copy of order which is annexed to the petition shows that it is one Anil s/o Hiraman Raut who is the supervisor. On the basis of these appeals, notices were sent to both the respondents, viz., M/s Vidarbha Tobacco Products Private Limited and Khemraj s/o Dhanraj Sakhare. For the reasons unknown, the person described in the order covered in Writ Petition No. 2617/92, namely, Anil s/o Hiraman Raut, has not been joined as a party in the said writ petition; instead, it is only Khemraj s/o Dhanraj Sakhare who has been joined as a party. As has been stated earlier, in responses to the notices, the respondents appeared and denied altogether their connection with all the appellants. Their contention was that, the applications have been made with ulterior motive when, in fact, there existed absolutely no connection between the employer and these person. It was contended further that these persons were never the employees either of the respondent No. 1, or of the respondent No. 1, or of the respondent No. 2. It seems that a consolidation application came to be made by none else but the appellants. One does not know as to what was meant by the consolidation. Perhaps, the appellants did not want to lead evidence of all the workmen and wanted to remain content by taking a short-cut by examining only one of the workers, as was the case. It was one Smt. Kamla Kewalram Sakhare who was examined in the cases covered by Writ Petition No. 2616/92, while it was one Smt. Kanta Laxman Sakhare who was examined in the cases covered by Writ Petition No. 2617/92; on behalf of the appellants. Both these witness were extremely short. They did not refer to any of the names. They also did not refer to the fact that the appellants in the accompanying appeals were also the workers of either respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 2. In Kamlabai''s case, she went to the extent of saying that she does not know who had put the thumb-mark on the appeal filed by her. The consolidation order was made at the instance of other appellants, but the application came to be opposed by the employer/respondents who insisted that, in fact, it was the burden on the part of the appellants to examine all the persons and prove their relationship, particularly when such relationship, particularly when such relationship itself was denied. It seems that the appellate authority also took a short-cut by ordering consolidation. Be that as it may, even after the consolidation order was passed, the appellants in both the matters remained content by examining only one witness and, that too, in an extremely slipshod manner. The appeals came it be dismissed by common orders in two cases. Therefore, these two writ petitions has been filed by the appellants, challenging the two orders passed by the appellate authority.
Shri Bagale, learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions, tried to submit that, in fact, when the petitioners who were working with the respondents for 25 years, their services could not be terminated in the manner undertaken by the respondents. His contention is that those were the poor persons who were exploited by unscrupulous employer and were also not carrying log-cards and, therefore, they were not able to file any documents along with their appeals, to prove the employee-employer relationship. His further contention is that, in fact, no opportunity has been given by the appellate authority to the petitioners to lead their own evidence to prove such employee-employer relationship and also the factum of dismissal. In support of his arguments, he relied on some slips which pertained to the Provident Fund Scheme 1952. According to him, these were the documents which showed that the concerned person were, in fact, having their account in the employee''s Provident Funds Scheme which went to show that they were actually the workers of the employers, the respondents in these petitions.
Shri Das, learned Counsel for the respondents in both the petitions, pointed out that, in fact, the consolidation itself was not proper and the same was opposed tooth and nail on behalf of the respondents; but since the petitioners wanted to take a short-cut and wanted to be spared of leading relevant evidence, they prayed for the consolidation. Shri Das further submitted that even if the matters were consolidated, nothing prevented the petitioners from leading their own evidence and examining each and every appellant to prove that such appellant was in service and was, in fact, illegally dismissed or discharged. He further contended that ample opportunities were thereafter given to the petitioners to lead evidence or to cooperate with the authorities below, in any manner. He pointed out that in pursuance of the application, he had filed the Provident Fund Registers and yet the Counsel for the petitioners appearing before the appellate authority did not even bother to take inspection. Ultimately, the appellate authority had to take inspection and find out whether in reality the petitioners were on the service roll of the respondents. His contention is, therefore, that the petitioners have been unnecessarily been involved by some unscrupulous labour leaders who are unnecessarily trying to create troubles by setting up the petitioners who, in fact, are non-existent. According to him, it is also not proved as to whether these petitioners really filed the appeals and are really interested in the matter.
I have seen the orders passed by the appellate authority in both these cases. The whole story appears to be extremely pathetic. It is not known, in the first place, as to why the petitioners made a consolidation application. In fact, the petitioners were being represented by the Counsel in both the matters. The manner in which the whose case has been conducted by the petitioners, is extremely slipshod and showing a total lack of application of mind. It is not known as to how the dismissal of all the appellants and the relationship of each and every appellant with the employers was going to be established by one single witness, as has been done in this case. Even if it is granted that such evidence could have been led, no care has been taken to show that the concerned witness knew each and every appellant and had known about the illegal dismissal; or discharge of the said appellant.
With the aid of the learned Counsel, I have gone through the evidence led, though the record was not available. The deposition is wholly short and does not, in any manner, convey that all the appellants or the petitioners, as the case may be, have been on the roll; of the employers/respondents. During the pendency of the appeals before the appellate authority, the registers maintained were called for and the respondents have, in fact, filed these registers before the appellate authority, which do not show the existence of any employer-employee relationship between the appellants and the respondents. The appellate authority has, in both the orders, specifically observed that number of opportunities have been given to; the petitioners to examine themselves, to inspect the records and to lead further evidence in support of their respective cases, but such opportunity has not been taken avail of by the petitioners. The employers has examined the respondent No. 2, who denied the claim of the petitioners that they were in his service; or in service of respondent No. 1. Nothing has come out in the cross-examination of the witness. I have also gone through the so-called Provident Fund slips along with the petitions. Apart from the fact that those slips do not, in any manner, show any connection with the respondents, they do not even pertain to the respondents, they do not even pertain to the petitioners. The names appearing on those four slips do not appear in the array of petitioners as described in both the petitions. Thus, even this attempt on the part of the petitioners/must be said to be abortive to prove that there existed any employee-employer relationship between the petitioners and the respondents.
Shri Bagale, thereafter, reiterated that the case should be remanded back to the appellate authority/Assistant Labour Commissioner, and a fresh opportunity should be given to the petitioners or prove the employer-employee relationship. This argument really cannot be accepted. It has to be borne in mind that the consolidation application came to be made on behalf of the petitioners only. Though it was opposed tooth and nail on behalf of the respondents, the said application was granted by the appellate authority. Thereafter also there was ample opportunity to the petitioners to examine themselves, as the consolidation did not mean the shutting up of all the evidence. The petitioners could still have examined themselves in relation to their own individual appeal and could have proved that there existed employer-employee relationship between them and the respondents and that they were dismissed in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Such attempt was never made and in spite of the ample opportunities presented to them by the appellate authority, they did not even bother to file a single document or to examine at least the appellants. The matter remained pending before the appellate authority for more than four years, an during all these four years, the petitioners did not bother either to attend the court of to offer themselves for evidence, or even to file a single document to substantiate their appeals. If this is the attitude taken, no purpose is going to be served by remanding the matters to the appellate authority which has taken every care to offer several opportunity to the petitioners to lead evidence. The state of affairs before this Court is also not different inasmuch as Anil Hiraman Raut, who was respondent No. 2 before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour/appellate authority, has never been joined in Writ Petition No. 2617 of 1992 and even the documents supplied with the petitions are wholly investment and do not pertain to the petitioners in either of the petition. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the orders passed by the appellate authority in these two petitions are perverse in any manner or show of non-application of mind. It also does not show that the orders suffer from any jurisdictional error or, for that matter, any factual error. Both these petitions are devoid of any merits. They are dismissed without any order as to the costs.