Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANDEEP MEHTA, SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, JJ.
Sri Khargeswar Narzary, S/o. Harmahan Narzary and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner and Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment and Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal No.50 Of 2019
Decided On : 16-10-2023
Labour Dispute - Termination of Services - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - [Muster Roll Workers] - [Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s), Section 25F, Section 25G, Section 25H] - The court discussed the status of the workers, burden of proof, and the requirement of following the mandates of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for discharging their services. The court emphasized the importance of producing original documents in support of labor claims and the need for equal application of rules of appreciation to both sides. The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh decision.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, Muster Roll workers, were terminated by the Bongaigaon Thermal Power Station (BTPS) and challenged the termination through a series of legal proceedings. The Labour Court rejected their claim of wrongful termination, which was affirmed by the learned Single Bench. The appellants appealed the judgment and final order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the documents presented by the workers in their evidence were not taken into account by the learned Single Judge and the Labour Court. The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh decision.
Issues: The issues revolved around the status of the workers, burden of proof, and the requirement of following the mandates of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for discharging their services.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of producing original documents in support of labor claims and the need for equal application of rules of appreciation to both sides.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh decision. No order as to cost.
JUDGMENT :
[Sandeep Mehta, J.]
The instant intra-Court writ appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 11.12.2018, passed by the learned Single Bench dismissing WP(C) No.3669/2014, preferred by the appellants herein.
2. By the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioners had challenged the award dated 03.06.2014, passed by the Labour Court, Guwahati in Reference Case No.7/2009. By the said award, the reference made by the Government vide Notification dated 26.05.2009, was answered in favour of the respondents, being the Management of the Bongaigaion Thermal Power Station (an undertaking of the Assam State Electricity Board) against the appellants, workmen.
3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ appeal are noted hereinbelow.
The appellants herein claim to be Muster Roll workers engaged by the respondent Corporation. Claiming that they had been unlawfully terminated, the appellants/writ petitioners preferred writ petition, being WP(C) No.4855/2006 in this Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 03.03.2009, giving liberty to the appellants to approach the Industrial Tribunal for ventilating their grievances.
Pursuant to the said order, Reference Case No.7/2009 was instituted before the Labour Court. The then employer ASEB (subsequently re-designated as Assam Power Development Corporation Limited) challenged the proceedings of the Reference Case No.7/2009 on the ground of res-judicata by filing the writ petition, WP(C) No.4620/2009.
The learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 19.05.2010, remanded the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for deciding the preliminary issue of res-judicata raised by the ASEB/APDCL.
The Labour Court decided the preliminary issue in favour of the ASEB/APDCL and issued the award dated 05.09.2010 rejecting the claim of the appellants.
The Appellants instituted writ petition, WP(C) No.6308/2010 for assailing the award dated 05.09.2010 whereby, the preliminary issue was decided against the appellants.
The aforesaid writ petition, WP(C) No.6308/2010 came to be allowed vide order dated 31.10.2013 and the award dated 05.09.2010 was quashed and set aside and the reference was remanded to the Labour Court.
Post Remand, the Labour Court conducted fresh proceedings and rejected the claim of the appellants regarding wrongful termination vide award dated 03.06.2014.
4. The appellants challenged the final award dated 03.06.2014, by preferring the captioned writ petition, WP(C) No.3669/2014, which stands rejected vide judgment and final order dated 11.12.2018, whereby the award dated 03.06.2014 passed by Labour Court has been affirmed.
5. The appellants herein have preferred the instant writ appeal for assailing the judgment and final order, dated 11.12.2018 rendered by the learned Single Bench as well as the award of the Labour Court.
6. Learned counsel Mr. S. Borthakur, Mr. D.C. Nath and Mr. P.H. Konwar, representing the appellants herein, vehemently and fervently contended that the appellants were appointed as workmen in the Bongaigaon Thermal Power Station (hereinafter referred to as the BTPS) at Salakati between the years 1981 and 1986. They continued to serve the BTPS till termination of their services in the year 2002 on the purported ground that the BTPS had stopped generating power.
7. Mr. Borthakur urged that the appellants set up a pertinent case before the Labour Court that they had been directly engaged by the BTPS Management/Authority by assigning them special duties/tasks allotted at different times. The appellants further set up a specific case that they used to sign the attendance register along with the regular employees and were also given the benefit of Provident Fund (PF), Gratuity and accommodation by the BTPS Authority. After their initial appointment directly under the BTPS, the appellants were informed that their salaries, after making statutory deduction, would be paid through agents
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of producing original documents in support of labor claims and the need for equal application of rules of appreciation to both sides....
A judgment contrary to the evidence or without evidence is perverse. Concession of counsel on such facts and law does not bind the party.Master-servant relationship.
The court upheld the tribunal's finding that workmen failed to prove direct employment, thus validating the contract labor arrangement.
The court established that without clear evidence of direct employment, claims of an employer-employee relationship under contract labour provisions cannot succeed.
The burden of proof to establish an employer-employee relationship lies with the employee, and the court's interference in such disputes is limited to cases of perversity or lack of supporting eviden....
The illegal refusal of employment by the management necessitated compensation for the workman, underscoring the employer's burden to prove any contrary claims.
The necessity for claimants to substantiate allegations of a sham contractor relationship to validate employment claims under the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing that mere supervision does not e....
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 main legal point established is that the burden of proof lies on the party claiming an employer-employee relationship, and regularisation and permanent absorption can only be granted in accordanc....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
