Heard learned advocates for the parties.
The petitioner, a Public Limited Company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956, has approached this Court by way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with following reliefs:
"(i) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 6th January 2003 in Ref. LCJ No. 1831/1990 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar at Annexure "A".
(ii) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation and the implementation of the order dated 6th January, 2003 in Ref. LCJ No. 1831/1990 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar.
(iii) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any further relief, which may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."
Facts in brief leading to filing this petition as could be culled out from the memo of petition deserve to be set out as under.
It is averred in the memo of petition that respondent workman was appointed by the petitioner Company as Casual Temporary Daily Rated employee. The respondent workman during the course of his submission also applied for the post of permanent clerk for which he was interviewed but he was not selected. The say of the Company is that as the respondent workman was having business of medicine in the name of 'Yogeshwar Sales Agency' as well as agency, he stopped attending the office of the Company. After sometime, respondent workman raised Industrial Dispute, which came to be referred to the Competent Court for adjudication wherein, it was registered as Reference (LCR) 47 of 1990 (old) and renumbered as Reference (LCJ) 1831 of 1990. The respondent workman filed statement of claim interalia alleging that his termination by the Company was absolutely illegal and therefore, he should be reinstated with all consequential benefits. The written statement denying the claim of respondent workman was filed by the Company and contended that the claim of respondent workman that his services were terminated with effect from 9.5.1987 was not correct and he i.e. workman of his own volition stopped attending the duties. In short it was a case of abandoning the job by workman concerned. The petitioner company in its written statement further contended that respondent workman was temporary hand and therefore, in fact workman applied for permanent post and appeared in the interview but did not succeed. It was further averred in the written statement by the Company that respondent workman held drug license and was having business in the name of 'Yogeshwar Sales Agency' and it was pleaded that Reference be dismissed. The parties examined the respective witnesses and ultimately, the concerned court came to the conclusion that the termination was illegal, without following provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ' the I.D. Act' for short). Hence, ordered reinstatement on his original post without any back wages vide Award dated 6.1.2003. Being aggrieve and dissatisfied with said award, the petitioner preferred present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
This Court (Coram: Jayant Patel, J.) on 1.3.2004 issued Rule and granted interim relief in terms of para-27(ii). Para-27(ii) reads as under:
(ii) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation and the implementation of the order dated 6th January, 2003 in Ref. LCJ No. 1831/1990 passed by the Labour Court, Jamnagar.
Thus, the impugned award was stayed.
Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the labour Court has erroneously recorded finding in respect of breach of provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. The Labour Court was under an obligation to record unequivocally finding in respect of completion of 240 days on the part of respondent workman before holding that there was a breach of provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act.
Learned advocate for petitioner contended that the Labour Court ought to have appreciated the fact that initial burden of establishing that workman had completed 240 days prior to his termination has not been discharged by the workman concerned and therefore, the entire premise on which the order is proceeded is unfounded and therefore, conclusion and award stands vitiated.
Learned advocate for petitioner relief upon the decision in case of Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani and others, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 100, and in case of Chief Engineer (Construction) Vs. Keshava Rao (Dead) by Lrs, reported in (2005) 11 SCC 229 and contended that workman concerned was required to plead and prove that he has completed 240 days prior to his termination for successfully invoking provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act.
Learned advocate for the petitioner has invited this court's attention to the statement of claim and impugned award and submitted that neither workman has pleaded nor the court has adverted to this facts, which are conspicuously lacking for constituting breach of section 25F of ID Act. Therefore, the conclusion itself is incorrect and award is required to be quashed and set aside.
Learned advocate for petitioner contended that the Labour Court ought to have appreciated the fact that the say of workman in respect of his illegal termination could not have been justifiably accepted as glaring facts, which have came out in the deposition of the workman qua he was holding drug license and having business ought to have been appreciated by the court in appropriate prospective so as to deny relief to the workman concerned, who has admitted that he had drug license and there was drug agency in the name of 'Yogeshwar Sales Agency'. Learned advocate for the petitioner extensively and emphatically read the testimony of Company's employee as well as cross examination of the workman in support of the aforesaid submission. The Labour Court has not appreciated this aspect though Labour Court has accepted that the say of Company with regard to workman being engaged in business is not incorrect.
Learned advocate for petitioner in alternatively and without prejudice to the aforesaid submission submitted that in any case, admittedly workman has not put up long service with the Company and looking to tenure of service of the workman, order of reinstatement was not justified in any manner and instead of reinstatement, order of lump sum payment in lieu of reinstatement have been offered and ordered as the concerned Labour Court has not considered this aspect, the order and award impugned suffers from patent infirmity, which renders the Award unsustainable in eye of law.
Learned advocate for the petitioner thereafter submitted that even today also, this court while examining the legality of order and award impugned, may suitably modify the award keeping in view the fact that workman did not render long service and he was with the company only for a period of about two years and now, even if the workman succeed in this petition and order of Labour Court is made operative, the workman has only 6 months to service left as he would be retired on attaining superannuation age by December, 2012.
Learned advocate for respondent workman contended that workman claimed in his statement of claim quashment of quantum of termination, which was absolutely without complying with the provisions of ID Act. The learned advocate for respondent extensively relied upon the statement of claim, deposition of workman and company's executive, contended that the company never took up a stand with regard to workman not completed 240 days and therefore, now it is not open to the advocate for the petitioner company to make out a case which has no basis in terms of pleadings. The entire written statement is conspicuously silent qua averment with regard to so called non-completion of 240 days on the part of workman concerned. On the contrary, the certificate issued by the competent officer of the company, which has been duly exhibited and it has been discussed during the testimony of the witness, unequivocally go to show that their exists no dispute qua period of working with the Company and therefore, company has rightly not taken up the issue with regard to so called non-completion of 240 days. The written statement of the Company though contain pleading in respect of respondent being engaged as temporary ad-hoc hand and was given work as and when required but that itself is not sufficient to constitute requisite pleading in respect of non-completion of 240 days on the part of workman. Therefore, the submission was canvassed on behalf of the workman concerned that there existed no pleading of non-completion of 240 days and therefore, this argument cannot be canvassed under Article 226 before this court for the first time.
Learned advocate for respondent further contended that statement of claim is unequivocally clear in respect of illegal termination. That testimony of the company executive in respect of deleting the name of workman from the muster roll is unequivocally clear qua termination of service without following due procedure of law and therefore, this court while examining this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may not interfere with the decision of the Labour Court, which is not in any way shown to be perverse or contrary to provisions of law. Learned advocate for respondent further submitted that striking of name amounts to retrenchment and admittedly there exists no compliance with provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. In support of this submission, learned advocate for respondent has relied upon the decision in case of H.D. Singh Vs. Reserve Bank of India and others, reported in (1985) 4 SCC 201.
Learned advocate for respondent further submitted that the detail discussion in the testimony of the workman and executive of the company qua workman engaged in the business or workman holding drug license, would be of no avail to petitioner company as those averments and testimony cannot be said to be so cogent as to conclude against workman, that he had abandon the job as sought to be canvassed on behalf of petitioner Company even before the Labour Court.
Learned advocate for respondent workman invited this court's attention at page-34 and contended that discussion with regard to abandoning the job on account of holding license, it is clearly indicated that respondent workman was not even inclined to abandon the job on this count nor can that be construed in any manner. Learned advocate for respondent workman invited this court's attention to the deposition of the executive of the Company wherein, it has came out that workman was in service of the company for the period mentioned in the certificate issued by the concerned authority. Shri Pathak, learned advocate for respondent heavily relied upon the last sentence in the cross-examination of the executive of the company, which was sought to be explained by Shri Naik, learned advocate for the company that it does not purport to say that workman was in fact in service for the period, as the entire testimony should read as a whole and it cannot be said that this statement indicate that workman was continuously in service, as in the said certificate, it was stated that workman was provided work as and when work was available.
This court has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents produced in the memo of petition. Before adverting to rival contentions raised by learned advocates for the parties, it is most expedient to set out indisputable aspect emerging therefrom as under:-
The workman has filed statement of claim claiming that he was working with the company since 24.7.1985 as a Clerk.
The workman has in fact said in his statement of claim that he was drawing wages at the rate of Rs.30/- per day.
The workman has claimed in the statement of claim that on 9.5.1987, without any rhyme or reason and without following any procedure of law, his services were terminated.
The workman has also claimed in the statement of claim that while terminating his service, no procedure whatsoever was followed, no notice was issued, no retrenchment compensation or notice pay was paid.
The workman raised dispute and demanded that he should be taken back on job and be paid his wages but it was not exceeded.
The workman has averred in his statement of claim that when his services were terminated, his junior was retain and on his post, new person is recruited.
The workman has also averred in the statement of claim that no seniority list was maintained as required under law by the Company.
The workman relied upon following decisions page-26:
* 1986 (52) LLR 634 Bombay;
* 1987 (54) LLR 512 Delhi;
* 1988 First LLR 297;
The statement of claim was filed on 7.1.1991.
The written statement was filed on 22.7.1991 by the petitioner Company.
The company accepted the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in the subject matter and did not dispute the same.
The petitioner Company denied the fact that workman was engaged from 24.7.1985.
The company denied that workman was relieved from 9.5.1987.
The company contended that as the Company has not discharged or relieved the workman in any manner, no question of paying notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation arise.
The company further contended that as workman is not retrenched. There is no question of entertaining the submission qua retaining junior or not maintaining seniority list and company reserved its right to advert to it subsequently at the appropriate time.
The Company further averred that in fact, the workman was temporary and ad-hoc employee and therefore, the workman himself has admitted and applied for permanent post and appeared in the interview but he did not succeed therein.
The company averred in the written statement that the workman was running business in the name of 'Yogeshwar Sales Agency' and workman had drug license and therefore, he had stopped coming to the company for work.
The company has averred that workman was fixed time daily rated workman and therefore, while terminating his services, no rules were required to be followed and therefore he is not entitled to relief.
The workman has given deposition, examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination, wherein, he has reiterated what he has stated in his statement of claim. The workman has said that he is true that he had drug license prior to joining job with the company and as that business did not yield any result and not viable, he had joined the company and he has surrendered license. He said that after termination, he tried to get employment but did not succeed and he was eking his life by making some misc. work of sales man and he was earning Rs.4000/- p.m. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that license was continued during his service period also. He has also admitted that he had not made any application for surrendering the license. He has pleaded ignorance of life of license but he has admitted that license has two years validity. He has admitted that as he was not permanent employee of the company, he had not surrendered the license. He had denied that license was renewed time and again and on the date of deposition, the license was valid.
The company's witness namely Shri Anantbhai Gulabkar has given his testimony which is reproduced at page-36. In his cross-examination, this employee has categorically admitted that as the workman has stopped coming for work, since that day, his name was not kept in the register and he has admitted that it is true that striking of the workman's name is not intimated to the workman. This witness has admitted that one Shri Sanghvi is still working in the canteen who is junior to respondent. This witness has admitted that retrenchment compensation or notice pay was not paid to the workman. This witness has categorically said that it is true that "the applicant had work in this unit or organization since 1985 to 9.5.1987".
The Labour Court has elaborately discussed all these aspect and came to the conclusion that workman deserved to be reinstated without any back wages.
Against aforesaid backdrop of facts and other aspect, now let us examine the rival contentions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties.
This court is of the considered view that court cannot accept the submission of learned advocate for the petitioner that the Labour Court has erred in not appreciating the fact that workman did not proved that he has worked for 240 days prior to his termination so as to invoke provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act. In fact, the learned advocate for respondent workman is correct in submitting that the workman was not even called upon to establish this fact as workman's statement of claim is unequivocally clear qua his allegation with regard to non-compliance with any provisions of ID Act before terminating his services. The workman has unequivocally mentioned that he was working in the company as temporary hand from the period mentioned in the statement of claim. Therefore, when such a statement of claim is received from the workman, it was required to be appropriately dealt with by the employer so as to specifically raised and challenge the ground of non-completion of 240 days so as to get out of the rigors of Section 25F of the ID Act. In fact, nothing prevented the company from unequivocally challenging the workman's say. That Section 25F was not required to be invoked as workman did not complete 240 days. In fact the company, as could be seen from its written statement has not adverted this aspect at all, as the entire written statement is conspicuously silent qua the word "non-completion of 240 days on the part of workman". The company has rather gone on the record in saying that workman was daily rated employee and therefore, as his tenure was fixed, there was no requirement to comply with Section 25F at all. The company had also gone on record and contended that workman has abandoned his job and he has not been retrenched at all. Therefore, it would not be possible for the Company to make company contradictory facts in the written statement and hence, the same is not reflected in the written statement. The court hastened to add here that nothing prevented the company from taking alternative pleading as per law of pleading so that appropriate issue or point of determination could be termed but as it is stated hereinabove, the company all alone insisted upon its stand that company has not terminated the services of the workman in any manner and it was an attempt on the part of the company to make out a case as if the workman has abandoned his job. Thus, when the Company has not taken that stand, the submission of learned advocate for petitioner at this stage in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of workman not completed 240 days and citation relied upon by learned advocate for petitioner in support thereof, would be of no avail and therefore, such argument being bereft of merit deserves rejection and is accordingly rejected.
The submission of learned advocate for the petitioner with regard to workman abandoning his job is also not acceptable in any manner as looking to the pleadings, testimony and evidence on record, it can safely be said that the said stand of the company that workman abandoned his job is not established at all. On the contrary, the testimony of the witnesses if read collectively and closely, would go to show that it was a clear case of retrenchment without following due procedure of law. The reliance placed by Shri Pathak in case of H.D. Singh (supra) also indicate that the striking of the name of workman from the wage roll would amount to retrenchment of the workman and in the instant case, it is clear testimony of the company's witness, which cannot be said to be purported to be indicating otherwise. The testimony qua striking of the name clearly indicates that the company's stand with regard to workman abandoning job was incorrect and rightly not accepted by the Labour Court and therefore, same cannot be interfered in any manner by this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
This brings the court to consider alternative plea of awarding compensation in lieu of reinstatement, as the workman was engaged only for a period of around two years, which shall not saddle liability of the workman so as to grant him all the benefits. This court is of the considered view that the Labour Court at relevant time while passing order did not grant any back wages, therefore, it was open to the petitioner company to comply with the order and take recourse of law for dispensing with the service of the workman concerned if his services are not required. The company's decision to challenge this award and pendency of the petition and granting of interim order by this court, cannot held against the workman nor can it be permitted to act in prejudicial manner. The pendency of the petition and granting of stay shall not be treated as the act which can prejudice any party, if the court is not inclined to accept the petition, then, naturally, the Labour court's award will come into operation.
The petitioner's counsel therefore, suggested lump sum payment of Rs.1,00,000/- in lieu of the order of reinstatement, was not justified as learned counsel for respondent workman produced calculation on record, indicating that the workman has suffered losses on account of pendency of litigation and stay. Therefore, in case if the court is not inclined to accept the petition, then, the lump sum payment in lieu of reinstatement be calculated on the basis that had there been no petition, the workman would have earn Rs.6,83,500/- as temporary employee and it has been placed on record that present minimum salary of his co-employees are Rs.18,000 to 25000/-, who are permanent.
At this stage, learned advocate for respondent workman submitted that in view of vast difference between two calculations and in view of decision in case of Devinder Singh Vs. Municipal Council, Sanaur, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 584, the court may not interfere with the judgment and award under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Court is of the considered view that there appears to be sufficient force in the submission canvassed on behalf of respondent workman and the petitioner has failed in indicating as to how petition under Articles 226 and 227 be maintained and there exists no justification for entertaining the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as there is no violation of any fundamental right or any statutory right, which would justify the petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
In the result, petition being bereft of merits, deserves rejection and is accordingly rejected. Rule discharged. No costs.
(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) pallav Top