IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
I.P. Mukerji, Biswaroop Chowdhury, JJ.
Upendra Choudhury – Appellant
Versus
M/s. J.K. Industries Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
APO 526 of 2015 With WPO 878 of 2003
Decided On : 30-09-2022
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10, 2 (k) – Writ Petitioner/Company is widely known and well reputed concern earning huge profit and growing day by day by skillful performance and hard labour rendered by its labourer / workmen engaged under it – Held, In Court opinion, this evidence was correctly weighed, analysed and evaluated by learned judge of tribunal observation of the learned judge that if bank had to prove that had paid remuneration of driver, he had to be called as a witness which bank did not do, was a very proper analysis and interpretation of evidence before it – Thereafter, tribunal held on basis of evidence produced before it that vehicle belonged to bank, it was driven by appellant for its employee, and that appellant had discharged his evidential burden – Presumption could also be made that appellant was an employee of the company, which could not rebut presumption or disprove facts proved by appellant – Appellant had and bank had failed to discharge its burden of proof – Conclusion reached by tribunal and reasons in support thereof were, in court opinion, logical, most probable, reasonable and far from perverse – Ordered Accordingly .
JUDGMENT :
Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.
1. The appellant before us was a workman before the Industrial Tribunal and respondent no-1 in Writ Application 870 of 2003. This appeal is directed against the Order dated 6th August 2015 passed in the said Writ Application.
2. The case of the appellant may be summed up thus:
2. The Company though a prosperous and flourishing one but unfair and exploitative to its workmen and has little regards to observe the principles and provisions of Industrial laws, specifically those enacted for the welfare of the labourers.
3. The workman/appellant concerned was engaged under the said Company as a driver in the year of 1994, without issuance of any appointment letter. He had to work 14, to 16 hours in a day and even on Sundays and holidays without any extra remuneration and in a very poor emoluments. His name was not enrolled in the attendance register, pay register only to deprive him from all legitimate dues, entitlement, though he drove the car belonging to the company under the instruction and supervision of the company and paid by the company for the said services.
4. The appellant/workman concerned orally protested to stop all such unfair practices, and irregularities, but he had to keep under the threat of throwing out of employment by the company. Inspite of such injustice and ruthless antilabour policy the workmen had all along been working hardly sincerely honestly and left no stone unturned to satisfy his superiors by best of his services throughout the tenure of employment.
5. Inspite of his earnest effort and best services the workman all on a sudden was terminated from his services, by the said company w.e.f. 07.09.97 without assigning any reason and prior notice but only by verbal order. His monthly salary was Rs. 2000/-at that point of time.
6. Under the said circumstances the workman protested against the said illegal and unjustified termination and demanded his immediate re-instatement in service with full back wages along with all consequential benefits by writing a letter dated 20-10-97 addressed to the company and sent the said letter through registered post with acknowledgement, simultaneously forwarding a copy of the said letter to the union of which he is a member, authorizing the union to represent his case.
7. Thereafter when the union came to understand that the company is in no mode to accept the legitimate and justified demands of the workman, the union represented the matter before the Labour Directorate West Bengal vides their representation dated 25-11-97 addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner West Bengal New Secretariat Building, 11th floor, Calcutta-700001 and the said office took up the said matter. Md. Zahiruddin, Asstt. Labour Commissioner, initiated the conciliation proceedings and exerted his efforts to settle the dispute inter alia convening joint conferences between the representations of the company and union but his efforts went in vain due to the adamant and non-conciliatory attitude of the company.
8. Under the circumstances the conciliation officer submitted necessary report before the Government and thereafter the matter came up for adjudication before the Learned 4th Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the issue as framed in the order of reference by the Government.
9. The company has acted in highly illegal unjustified arbitrary and malafide manner to terminate the services of the workman by violating all the provisions of Industrial Law and principles of natural and social justice as well. The workman was issued no charge-sheet nor any domestic enquiry was proceeded with against him before the termination. He was given no notice and/or any monetary benefit prior to the termination. He was simply asked verbally not to come any more for duty
Gajendragadkar in Syed Yakoob vs. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Ors.
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque
Indian Overseas Bank vs. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union and Anr.
Kaushalya Devi v. Bachittar Singh
Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets
Nagandra Nath v. Commr. of Hills Division
Paradeep Phosphates Ltd. vs. State of Orissa & Ors.
Pepsico India Holding Pvt. Ltd. vs. Krishna Kant Pandey
Punjab National Bank vs. Ghulam Dastagir
Punjab National Bank vs. Ghulam Dastagir
Shivnandan Sharma vs. Punjab National Bank Ltd.
Syed Yakoob vs. K.S Radhakrishan
Workmen of the Food Corporation of India vs. Food Corporation of India
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove the contents of documents by primary evidence or secondary evidence under Sections 61 and 65 of the Evidence Act.
Point of Law- Termination of service - Reinstatement - while contesting the reference it is open to a party to raise pleadings that what was referred for adjudication was not an industrial dispute at....
The illegal refusal of employment by the management necessitated compensation for the workman, underscoring the employer's burden to prove any contrary claims.
The Labour Court's determination that a sham contract exists may classify workers as employees of the principal employer, thereby validating their claims for service conditions and protections under ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and its application to the case at ha....
The court affirmed that non-compliance with contractor licensing does not negate the employer-employee relationship, emphasizing control and direct employment evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.