Back
2007 Supreme(Online)(KER) 25713
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J
SATHI DEVAN – Appellant
Versus
LABOUR COURT,ERNAKULAM – Respondent
WP(C)/21620/2004
SRI. K.P. SREEKUMAR, SRI. HARISH R. MENON, SRI.JOLLY JOHN, SRI.A.V.XAVIER, SMT. SMITHA
The court reinforced the principle that the burden of proof lies with the employer to justify claims of business closure and denial of employment.
Headnote:
Employment - Claim for Arrears of Wages - Industrial Disputes Act Section 33(C)(2) - The court upheld the labour court's decision to award arrears of wages, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to provide evidence supporting claims of business closure and denial of employment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner contested an order awarding arrears of wages to the respondent, who claimed employment after alleged illegal termination. Despite opportunities to present evidence, the petitioner failed to substantiate claims regarding closure of business and the nature of the respondent's employment.
Finding of the Court:
The labour court found the evidence provided by the petitioner inadequate and confirmed the respondent's claim for arrears. The court held that part-time work in another capacity did not negate the claim for back wages from the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could establish closure of business and deny the employment claimed by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of convincing evidence from the petitioner regarding the closure of the business or employment elsewhere affirmed the legitimacy of the respondent's wage claims.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
J U D G M E N T
I heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent.
2. Petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 order whereunder labour court has awarded arrears of wages to the claimant respondent herein a second round even after remand by this Court. Petitioner was initially running an ayurvedic medical shop and converted the same to a shop selling utensils and house hold articles. Even though, 2nd respondent, a close relative of petitioner's husband, claimed employment after illegal termination petitioner denied the employment as such. Petitioner's claim was found against in ID, which was confirmed in original petition and writ appeal by this Court. Consequent upon the award in the ID, petitioner was bound to reinstate the 2nd respondent with back wages. However, on failure, 2nd respondent filed claim petition under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act claiming arrears of wages, bonus, leave salary etc., which was allowed in part. Petitioner challenged the award in the claim petition passed by the Labour Court before this Court and this Court vide Ext.P5 judgment, granted one more opportunity to the petitioner to prove closure of business unit in 1986 and further to establish petitioner's denial of full time employment by 2nd respondent.
3. It is seen from Ext.P6 that even after this Court granted an opportunity, petitioner did not adduce any evidence to establish closure of the unit in 1986 or to prove that the claimant was full time employed elsewhere. In spite of this, the Labour Court reconsidered the matter and found that the part time employment of the 2nd respondent as a Poojari in a temple does not stand in the way of his work with the petitioner. So far as petitioner's claim for closure of the shop in 1986 is concerned, the evidence produced by petitioner was inadequate and inconsistent. Moreover, even though challenge against the ID ended up in the judgment of this Court in W.A.No.62/87 dated 16/12/1988, petitioner has not chosen to submit in this Court that the shop was closed in 1986 i.e. two years before disposal of the writ appeal. In the circumstances, there is no bona fides in the case of petitioner. Therefore, all stay orders granted will stand vacated.
This writ petition is devoid of any merit and is dismissed.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
