The employer bears the burden of proving that the worker was gainfully employed during the dispute period to deny back wages; failure to provide evidence supports the worker's claim to back wages.

Order :

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.

1. The instant appeal is under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 03.10.2024 passed in W.P.(L) No.2077 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the Award passed by learned Labour Court in I.D. Case No.01 of 2014 awarding 50% back wages has been refused to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition.

Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read as under :-

The case of the workman in brief is that the earlier his employer was running the business in the same premises in the name and style of M/s. Bharat Castings Corporation which is presently is known as M/s. Amit Steel Industries (P) Ltd. It has been stated that his employer, M/s Amit Steel Industries (P) Ltd., Bokaro Industrial Area Bokaro has wrongfully terminated the services of the applicant workman (respondent herein).It has further been stated that the action of the management in termination of respondent/workman is not justified.

The case of the respondent/workman is that the workman had been working in the factory of the employer since 19.09.1985 on the post of Operator and he was involved in the work of welding and melting.

The workman was doing his work with sincerity and devotion but the workman was terminated from the employment by the management without any reason only on account of suspicion.

Further, the case of the workman is that on 26.06.2013, the workman made a verbal request to the manager who is also the proprietor of the plant to enhance the amount of his monthly salary, which was perhaps not liked by him and suddenly he got so much infuriated and the workman was verbally asked by him not to report for duty from the next day.

It has been stated that even after verbal instruction by the management, the workman remained himself reporting daily on the gate of the plant/factory continuously till 03.07.2013 but was not allowed to enter into the plant by the gate keeper/security guard.

It is stated that Manager Sri Awadhesh Prasad had asked the gatekeeper not to allow the entry of the applicant in the plant. Since the workman was running under great hardships, so he requested to the management for making him the final payment of dues such as the amount of due salary for the month of June, 2013, amount of P.F., amount of gratuity, amount of Notice Pay, amount of retrenchment benefit, etc. as per the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (herein referred as Act, 1947).

Further, the case of the workman is that on 20.07.2013 the workman received a call on his mobile from Sri A.K. Pathak the cashier who informed him that owner of the plant Sri Amit Prasad has desired to meet the workman and on the same day the workman was ill-treated and scolded there. The workman, after the incident, filed an application before the Conciliation Officer-cum-Labour Superintendent, Bokaro Steel City who started conciliation proceeding at his level vide his letter No. 770 dt. 12.11.2013 and letter no.52 dt. 30.01.2014.

The proprietor of M/s Amit Steel Industries (P) Ltd. was called for conciliation first time on 23.11.2013 and thereafter on 11.02.2014 but on both the dates neither the employer himself nor his any representative appeared, so the workman was verbally advised by the Conciliation Officer and Labour Superintendent that conciliation has failed and the workman should file his case directly before the Labour Court.

The workman, thereafter, had sent a legal notice to the management through his advocate through speed post but till the filin