Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2617
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, PARTH PRATEEM SAHU, JJ.
Pragatisheel Engineering Shramik Sangh Industrial Estate, Chhattisgarh – Appellant
Versus
Simplex Castings Ltd, Chhattisgarh & Others – Respondents
WA No. 470, 333, 334, 337, 418, 420, 424, 428, 430 & 469 of 2016
Decided on : 13-09-2019
For the Appellants:Prafull N. Bharat, Shishir Dixit, Goutam Khetrapal, Advocates. For the Respondents:Dr. N.K. Shukla, Senior Advocate Management assisted by Priyankesh Chandrakar, Kishore Bhaduri, Ravi Ranjan Sinha, N.K. Vyas, Vinod Deshmukh, Ankit Pandey, Apoorva Mishra, Advocates, Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the allocation of the burden of proof in cases of industrial disputes, specifically regarding the Employee-Employer relationship and continuous service.
Headnote:
Burden of Proof - Industrial Dispute - Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Industrial Relations Act, 1960 - Section 27 of the Act, 1960 - Section 29 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the burden of proof in cases of industrial disputes, the requirement to satisfy 240 days of service in the preceding 12 months, and the obligation of employers to produce relevant records in support of their contentions under Section 29 of the Act, 1970. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the Employee-Employer relationship, continuous service, and the duty to produce documents by the employers.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute between a Union and Employers regarding the termination of services of workers. The Union claimed reinstatement and compensation, while the Employers contended that the workers were not directly employed by them and had not satisfied the requirement of continuous service of 240 days in the preceding 12 months. The Industrial Court awarded compensation to the workers, which was challenged in writ petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the burden of proof was on the Union to establish the Employee-Employer relationship and continuous service. It held that the Industrial Court's finding that the Union had failed to prove these elements was correct. The court also concluded that the duty to produce documents in support of the employment through contractors was not on the Employers. The writ petitions filed by the Employers were allowed, and those filed by the Union were dismissed.
Issues: The main issues were the burden of proof regarding the Employee-Employer relationship, the requirement of continuous service, and the duty to produce documents in support of employment through contractors.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof was on the Union to establish the Employee-Employer relationship and continuous service. It also determined that the duty to produce documents in support of employment through contractors was not on the Employers.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge, allowing the writ petitions filed by the Employers and dismissing those filed by the Union.
JUDGMENT :
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
1. Denial of relief to the workmen represented by the Appellant-Union in respect of the claim for reinstatement in service as sought for in the writ petitions and at the same time, allowing the writ petitions filed by the Management/Employer, setting aside the verdict passed by the Industrial Court which granted a lump-sum compensation of Rs.20,000/- for each of the workmen, is put to challenge in these appeals preferred by the Union. The finding rendered by the Industrial Court that the Workmen-Union had failed to establish / substantiate the Employee- Employer relationship, that the workmen had a continuous service of more than 240 days and further that they were not entitled for the claim of reinstatement, came to be upheld in the writ petitions; which made the learned Single Judge to interdict the compensation ordered by the Industrial Court (referring to the lapse/failure on the part of the Management in producing any relevant material in support of their contention that the workers concerned were not employed by them) holding it as not correct or sustainable, being contrary to the law and precedents.
2. To understand the nature of contentions putforth by the Appellant/Union, it will be worthwhile to have a bird's eye view to the factual scenario, which was prevailing in the field, when the industrial dispute arose during the early 1990's. It is stated that there was a widespread industrial unrest because of the alleged non-recognition of the worker's rights in getting proper appointment orders dealing with their service conditions and in providing eligible benefits in accordance with law. The workmen, under such circumstances, joined the Appellant-Union, who exposed their grievance, demanding proper remedial measures before the Employers/Managements. This was to be chagrin of the Employers/ Managements, which led to strike and such other direct actions/ agitations. Pouring oil to the fire, a Union Leader and Activist named Shankar Guha Niyogi was shot dead, in connection with which the CBI prosecuted several industrialists. There was an en-mass protest, which led to a police firing, in which 17 workmen / public lost their lives. The accused in the murder case came to be convicted by the trial Court, who however got acquitted in appeal filed before this Court.
3. Allegedly as a measure of retaliation, the Employers joined together and there was an en-mass termination of services, which made the Union to raise an industrial dispute in terms of the relevant provisions of the Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1960') and the matter was referred for adjudication by the 'Appropriate Government' on 26.03.1993. In fact, the three separate issues referred were with regard to; (i) the various allowances payable; (ii) the various leave eligibility/ entitlement and (iii) whether the termination of services of the employees/workmen shown in the Annexure/Schedule was correct or justified and if not, the relief to which they were entitled for. Subsequently, the terms of reference were modified and one more issue was referred by the 'Appropriate Government' as per the proceeding dated 31.07.1995; which was in relation to 'granting of interim relief' to the workmen named in the Annexure/Schedule during pendency of the proceedings.
4. Pursuant to the reference, the Union filed detailed claim statement projecting their rights as employees of the Respondents-Managements and asserting that, the termination of services was quite wrong and illegal in all respects. This was sought to be rebutted by the Managements by filing written statement, contending that, but for a few named persons, the others were never employed by the Managements but by the Contractors, to whom work was assigned by the Managements. It was also asserted that there was no Employee- Employer relationship and that the persons concerned had no continuous service of 240 days in
