Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
Ram Reni Transport, Represented By Its Managing Partner Nandhini R. and Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Murukesan, S/o. P.K. Krishnan Chettiar and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No. 2163 of 2018 & WP(C) No. 1125 of 2020
Decided On : 26-03-2025
(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(A)(2) - Challenge to common award by partnership firms engaged in stage carriage services regarding denial of employment and reinstatement of workers - The Tribunal found that management denied employment to workers and awarded compensation with an option for reinstatement. (Paras 1 - 6 , 14-17)
(B) Employment Law - The employer-employee relationship was contested; the Tribunal established linkage between management entities and denied claims of voluntary resignation by workers based on lack of evidence. (Paras 8 - 10 )
(C) Evidence - The Tribunal drew adverse inference due to management's failure to produce essential employment records, reinforcing the workers' claims. (Paras 10 - 16 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioners are partnership firms challenging the Tribunal's award that found they denied employment to workers who claimed reinstatement and back wages. The management argued there was no employer-employee relationship and that workers had resigned voluntarily.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held the management denied employment to the workers and awarded them compensation, with reinstatement as an alternative if compensation was not paid.
Issues: The main issues included the existence of an employer-employee relationship and the legitimacy of the workers' claims for reinstatement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the management's failure to produce documents led to an adverse inference and upheld the Tribunal's findings of denial of employment.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
W.P.(C) No.2163 of 2018 is filed challenging Ext.P4 common award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad, dated 06.11.2017 in Industrial Dispute No.2/2016. The 1st and 2nd petitioners are partnership firms engaged in stage carriage services.
2. Respondents 1 to 6 in the writ petition filed an application under Section 2 (A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking relief against the denial of employment by the management and also for reinstatement in service with back wages. Subsequently, the same subject matter was referred as per the Government Order dated 16.12.2015. The application filed under Section 2 (A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was taken on file as O.A.I.D. No.1/2015, and the reference was taken on file as I.D.No.2/2016, and as the issues and the parties were common, both the disputes were considered jointly leading to Ext.P4 common award.
3. The respondents 1 to 6 of this writ petition contended that they were working as Drivers, Conductors and Cleaners in the bus service owned by the 7th respondent, Managing Partner, NTP Bus Services. Later on, based on the contention raised by the management, M/s Ram Reni Transport, M/s Nithya Transport, M/s Nallappa Transport and M/s Manikandan Bus Services were impleaded as supplementary parties. The Workmen contended that the management was running buses bearing Registration Numbers (1) KL-10-Q-8600, (2) KL-11 R 5851, (3) KL-13 P 8719, (4) KL 08 Z 9118, (5) KL 08 D 7135, (6) KL 08 AB 4007, (7) KL 09 B5670, (8) KL 13 H 7272 (9) KL 8 Y 1484 (10) KLQ 2005, (11) KL 9 AA 8060 and (12) KL 8 X 1683 and had many routes allotted by the Regional Transport Authority including inter-state permit on Pollachi-Thrissur route. Alleging that the workmen were not paid their statutory entitlements and that the management had asked them to work in all buses the management owned and that the workers had worked in all the buses of the management which were plying in the name of NTP bus service interchangeably, a complaint was raised that the management had denied employment to them which was illegal and therefore they claimed reinstatement with back wages.
4. The management contended that Sri. Ramaswamy Gounder had no relation to the NTP Bus Service, and he is the Managing Partner of Nithya Transport and Manikandan Bus Service, partnership firms constituted on 27.03.2013 and 1.06.2006, respectively. It was stated that Smt. Nandini is the Managing Partner of Ram Reni Transport, a firm constituted on 01.09.1990. It was stated that Nallappa Transport had no relationship whatsoever in the dispute. In short, they contended that there was no employer-employee relationship between the workers and the NTP Bus Service and Nallappa Transport and that all the five managements in the dispute were independent.
5. It was further alleged that Sri. Murukesan and Sri. Aravindan, respondents 1 and 6, were working in Ram Reni Transport and had resigned voluntarily and Sri. Aravindan settled his Employees Provident Fund on 12.10.2010 and received Rs.1,31,185/-, while Sri. Murukesan who was working from 01.08.2010 to 02/2011, had resigned from service. It was stated that Sri. Rathinakumar, Sri. M. Kandaswami and Sri. N. Chandran, respondents 2 to 4, had resigned from Manikandan Bus Service on 06.06.2005 and had also received a refund from the Motor Thozhilali Welfare Fund Board. It was stated that the Sri. Ravi, the fifth respondent, has not worked at all in the 2nd, 3rd and 5th management at any point in time and had no employer-employee relationship between them. Workers No.2 to 4 in the dispute had worked in Nithya Transport subsequently and had resigned from service on 05.08.2011, 11.06.2011 and 30.08.2011, respectively. They contend that there was no occasion for any denial of employment to workers 1 to 6 in the above dispute by management Nos.2, 3 and 5 and hence they are not entitled to any relief as claimed.
6. Through the award impugned, it was found that workmen Nos.1, 2, 3, 4
The Tribunal's findings on denial of employment were upheld due to management's failure to provide evidence, establishing a link between the management entities and the workers' claims for compensati....
Labour law – Reinstatement - Granting of relief of reinstatement after such a long gap will not serve any purpose and, therefore, this Court is of the view that if the order to grant compensation
Reinstatement of workmen after illegal termination is not automatic; monetary compensation may be granted instead based on specific circumstances and legal precedents.
The court determined that the tribunal misapplied the law regarding employment and erred in concluding the existence of an employer-employee relationship, necessitating the annulment of the reinstate....
Burden of proof in employment disputes shifts to the employer once workmen establish their employment. In cases of termination, statutory compliance is critical.
The court upheld that the burden of proving continuous service and employee-employer relationship lies with the workman, which was not met, leading to dismissal of the claim based on delay and lack o....
The court affirmed that the management's contract with a contractor was a sham, establishing the respondent as a direct employee entitled to reinstatement and back wages.
The court emphasized the necessity of a proper inquiry before termination and the management's right to present evidence post-inquiry issues.
In cases of wrongful termination of service, the employee is entitled to back wages unless the employer proves that the employee was gainfully employed during the relevant period.
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
