Back
2008 Supreme(Bom) 582
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & SRI A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ.
German Remedies – Appellant
Versus
R.D. Lotlikar – Respondent
APPEAL NO.704 OF 2007
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.967 OF 2007
DECIDED ON : 21ST APRIL, 2008.
Mr.C.U. Singh, Sr. Counsel, a/w. Mr.P.M. Palshikar, Advocate, for the Appellants.
Mr.R.D. Bhatt, Advocate, for the Respondent.
The burden of proof on the claimant to establish their status as an employee under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, the jurisdictional requirement for the Labour Court to deal with the matter, the application of the principle of estoppel, and the need for proper analysis of evidence before arriving at a different finding from the lower court are the central legal points established in the judgment.
Headnote:
MRTU & PULP Act - Employee Status - Section 3(5) - [MRTU & PULP Act, 1971, Section 3(5)] - The court discussed the interpretation of the term 'employee' under Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 and its application to the case. It highlighted the importance of the predominant duty performed by the individual to determine their status as an employee under the Act. The court also emphasized the burden of proof on the claimant to establish their status as an employee and the jurisdictional requirement for the Labour Court to deal with the matter. The court clarified the principle of estoppel and its application in cases where the employer's conduct implies the employee's status as a 'workman' under the Act. The judgment also discussed the Industrial Court's revisional powers under Section 44 of the Act and the need for proper analysis of evidence before arriving at a finding different from the lower court. The court emphasized the requirement for the Industrial Court to assess whether the lower court's finding was contrary to the evidence or was arbitrary. The judgment also referenced relevant case law to support its conclusions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant company filed an appeal against the dismissal of its writ petition, challenging the Industrial Court's decision that the respondent was an employee under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. The respondent had filed a complaint to the Labour Court, disputing the appellant's claim that he was not an employee under the Act. The appellant argued that the Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction and reappreciated evidence to arrive at a different finding. The respondent contended that the Labour Court had ignored relevant evidence and that the Industrial Court rightly set aside its decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Industrial Court had the jurisdiction to assess the evidence and determine the respondent's status as an employee under the Act. It emphasized the burden of proof on the claimant to establish their status as an employee and the need for the Labour Court to ascertain the existence of an employer-employee relationship before proceeding with the matter. The court clarified the principle of estoppel and its application in cases where the employer's conduct implies the employee's status as a 'workman' under the Act. It also highlighted the Industrial Court's revisional powers under Section 44 of the Act and the requirement for proper analysis of evidence before arriving at a different finding from the lower court.
Issues: The issues revolved around the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, the burden of proof on the claimant to establish employee status, the application of the principle of estoppel, and the proper exercise of revisional powers under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision emphasized the burden of proof on the claimant to establish their status as an employee under the Act, the jurisdictional requirement for the Labour Court to deal with the matter, the application of the principle of estoppel, and the need for proper analysis of evidence before arriving at a different finding from the lower court.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the Industrial Court, and restored the order passed by the Labour Court. The appeal succeeded, and there was no order as to costs. The request for stay was rejected.
1. Heard.
2. Admit. Taken up for hearing forthwith. Mr.Bhatt waives service for the Respondent.
3. Present Appeal arises from the order dated 28th June, 2007 passed in the Writ Petition No.967 of 2007 by the learned Single Judge whereby the said Writ Petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The said Petition was filed against the Judgment and Order dated 8th November, 2006 passed by the Industrial Court, Bombay in Revision Application (ULP) No.167 of 2004. By the said order the Industrial Court had allowed the Revision Application filed by the Respondent and set aside the Judgment and Order dated 29th September, 2004 passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No.130 of 1995, while holding that the respondent herein is the employee within the meaning of the said expression under Section 3 sub-section 5 of MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 (hereinafter called as "the said Act") and therefore the Labour Court should proceed to decide the complaint on merits. The Labour Court by its order dated 29th September, 2004 had held that the respondent is not the employee within the meaning of the said expression under the said provision of the said Act and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable.
4. The appellant-company is a public limited company having its divisional office at Bombay and factories at Goa, Pathalganga etc. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent joined the services in the appellant-company on 1st November, 1973 as Junior Engineer at its Andheri factory. The agreement of service was executed between the parties in relation to the terms and conditions of the service in January, 1981 and on 1st January, 1990 the respondent was promoted to M-6 grade of the management and he was given managerial and supervisory duties. It is further case of the appellant that on account of misconduct on the part of the respondent, suspension order was issued on 25th October, 1993 which was followed by the charge sheet dated 9th November, 1993. An inquiry was conducted and the findings of the inquiry officer were adverse to the respondent. Consequently show cause notice came to be issued to the respondent on 12th May, 1995 and thereafter by order dated 15th May, 1995, the respondent was discharged from the services. A complaint came to be filed under the said Act to the Labour Court by the respondent on 6th April, 1995. The appellant raised a preliminary issue about lack of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to deal with the matter on the ground that the respondent is not an employee within the meaning of the said expression under the provisions of the said Act. The Labour Court accordingly framed the preliminary issue as to whether the respondent was the employee under the said Act or not. Framing of the preliminary issue itself was sought to be challenged by the respondent in Revision Application No.79 of 1996, which came to be dismissed by the Industrial Court on 23rd July, 1998. The parties then led evidence in relation to the preliminary issue and by order dated 29th September, 2004, the preliminary issue was answered in favour of the appellant. Being dissatisfied, the respondent carried the matter in Revision Application No.167 of 2004 before the Industrial Court, whereupon the order of the Labour Court was set aside and thereafter the matter was challenged by the appellant in the Writ Petition No.967 of 2007 which came to be dismissed by the impugned Judgment. Hence, this Appeal.
5. The impugned Judgment of the learned Single Judge and that of the Industrial Court are sought to be assailed on behalf of the appellant on the ground that the Industrial Court could not have exercised its jurisdiction beyond the parameters of the provisions of law comprised under the section 44 of the said Act and consequently the Industrial Court could not have reappreciated the evidence to arrive at a finding different from that which was arrived at by the Labour Court on the aspect of the st
