2019 Supreme(Bom) 698

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
Diffusion Engineering Limited - Appellant
Versus
Prithviraj Patle - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2768 of 2019
Decided On : 25-04-2019

Headnote:

Companies Act 2013 – Sections 399, 137 – Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 – Section 73 – Wages – Allowances – Petitioner - employer is aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court whereby the reference as made under Section 73(2) of the Maharashtra Industrial Relations Act, 1946 has been answered in the affirmative holding the respondents-employees entitled for a raise in wages, allowances and other monetary benefits – It is the case of the petitioner which is a public limited company that it is operating four different units undertaking manufacture of various engineering products. – The dispute in question relates to one of its units wherein in the year 2012, about 248 workmen were engaged. – The respondents in their capacity as elected representatives of the workmen therein made various demands and matter was considered by the Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur. Since conciliation was not possible a failure report was submitted – State Government thereafter in exercise of powers under Section 73(2) of the said Act referred the industrial dispute to the Industrial Court for adjudication. – A statement of claim was filed by the respondents seeking increase in wages, allowances along with other monetary benefits. – The claim was opposed by the employer. – Evidence was led by the workmen while the employer examined its Personnel Manager. – Judge of the Industrial Court after considering the material as placed recorded a finding that the respondents were justified in raising various demands as made in the statement of claim. – It was held that the workmen were entitled for a rise in wages, dearness allowance, travelling allowance, special attendance allowance, house rent allowance, washing allowance and medial allowance. – Similarly, the aspect of entitlement to casual leave, other forms of leave and payment of bonus was also accepted. – Award was accordingly passed answering the reference – Being aggrieved the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid judgment. – Held, Industrial Court in the impugned order has referred to non-production of material documents such as audited balance-sheet, profit and loss accounts and other audited accounts by the employer. – After observing that these documents were in exclusive possession of the employer, the Industrial Court proceeded to draw an adverse inference against the employer for non-production of the same. – In this regard it is to be noted that the workmen did not give any notice to produce the said document to the employer. It would have been a different matter that such documents were not produced despite a notice to produce the same having been given. – As observed in Ibrahim Uddin (supra) the aspect as to whether the other side could have sought production of relevant documents or could have filed interrogatories was a material factor. – All relevant pros and cons were required to be examined before drawing any adverse inference. – Moreover, such inference could be drawn if other larger evidence on record is shown to the contrary. – Thus, in absence of even a demand being made to the employer to produce the audited statement, it was not permissible for the Industrial Court to have straight way drawn an adverse inference due to absence of such material on record. – Similar is the case as regards an admission by one of the witnesses of the employer which is sought to be relied upon by the workmen. – It is to be noted that a stray admission by itself would not be sufficient to hold that the employer had admitted to the revision of pay scale. – Documentary evidence was very much necessary for being brought on record but no efforts in that regard were taken by the respondents. – Merely on the basis of some stray admission which is more of an aimless suggestion would not be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that such admission was sufficient evidence to indicate or justify the revision in pay scales or other demands in the statement of claim. – In the light of the fact that the reference with regard to revision of pay scales came to be made in view of various demands of the workmen, a fresh adjudication by complying with necessary legal requirements is warranted. – The Honble Supreme Court after laying down aforesaid such principles in Workmen of Balmer Lawrie and another as well as in Woolcombers of India Ltd. (supra) has granted an opportunity to the workmen to justify the statement of claim as made. – Court is therefore inclined to follow a similar course as was done in the aforesaid cases. – Award as passed by the Industrial Court while answering the reference as made is set aside. – Order Accordingly