Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 454
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.
Niranjan Goswami – Appellants
Vs.
The State of Bihar and Ors. – Respondents
CWJC No. 20887 of 2014
Decided On : 27-03-2017
For the Appellant : Navjot Yeshu
For the Respondents: Birju Prasad and Ravi Kumar
The judgment emphasizes the limitations of the court's jurisdiction to review findings of fact and the need for a serious error of law or jurisdiction to annul the Labour Court's award.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Termination of Service - Section 10(1)(c) - Section 25-F - [I.D. Act, 1947, Section 10(1)(c), Section 25-F]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ application to quash an award upholding his dismissal from service by the employer under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D. Act). The dispute arose when the petitioner and seven others were dismissed from service by the management of the university, leading to a reference for adjudication by the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court found that the petitioner failed to prove that he had worked continuously for the required number of days in a calendar year, and therefore, his dismissal did not require compliance with the provisions prescribed under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act. The court also emphasized the limitations of its jurisdiction to review findings of fact and the need for a serious error of law or jurisdiction to annul the Labour Court's award.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's continuous service, compliance with Section 25-F of the I.D. Act, and the jurisdictional limitations of the court in reviewing findings of fact.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's failure to prove continuous service for the required period and the limitations of the court's jurisdiction to review findings of fact.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed as the court found no fundamental flaws in the Labour Court's findings and exercise of discretion.
Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University. The petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of award dated 13.2.2014 passed in Reference Case No. 8 of 2000 by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhagalpur under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "I.D. Act") whereby it has upheld the order passed by the employer dismissing the petitioner from service.
2. The petitioner and seven others had submitted an application dated 19.7.1999 disputing their dismissal from service from February, 1999 by the management of the Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bhagalpur-cum-Authority under conciliation proceeding. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Bhagalpur took initiative for a fair and amicable settlement of the dispute, but no settlement could be arrived at between the parties. On failure of reconciliation, a report under Section 12(4) of the I.D. Act was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the Government vide letter No. 1888 dated 15.9.1999.
3. After considering the facts and circumstances, the Government opined that industrial dispute exists between the management and workmen. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10(1)(C) read with 10(2-A) of the I.D. Act, the Government referred the dispute for adjudication on 11.3.2000.
4. The reference dated 11.3.2000 reads as under:--
"Whether the termination of Sri Phuleshwar Thakur and other seven workmen of Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur press is justified? If not, what relief they are entitled to?"
5. As the petitioner failed to appear before the Labour Court and participate in the proceedings, the Labour Court proceeded with the reference of other seven workmen with respect to their respective claims and decided the same vide award dated 9.5.2007.
6. After the disposal of reference in respect of other workmen, the petitioner approached the Labour Court and submitted that his case be also considered and decided in terms of the reference made by the Government. Thereafter, the Labour Court proceeded with the case of the petitioner.
7. The petitioner took a plea that he had worked as a Compositor on the sanctioned post in the University. Press from 1.12.1990 till 9.7.1999. He contended that while terminating trim from service, he was not given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and even wages for the period of notice in lieu of such notice in terms of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act were not paid to him.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court failed to appreciate the evidence led before it in correct perspective. He submitted that merely because the petitioner failed to show documents in support of payment made for 240 days in one calendar year, it ought not to have decided the reference against the petitioner specially when on the basis of same evidence reference in respect of seven other workmen was allowed vide award dated 13.2.2014 in their favour.
9. On the other hand, stand of the University before the Labour Court was that the petitioner was appointed on contract on 27.12.1990 and he worked as such till 5.5.1991. He was paid his wages for the work done during this period. He contended that there was no relationship of an employer and employee and since the petitioner had not completed 240 days of continuous service, there was no requirement for complying with the provisions prescribed under Section 25-F of the I.D. Act.
10. Learned counsel for the University submitted that the Labour Court examined the bank statement of the petitioner's saving account and found that only two transactions were made and total remaining balance of Rs. 50/- was shown in his saving account. It also noticed that from photocopy of cheque of Rs. 1,600/- issued by the University in favour of the petitioner with regard t
