important Point
Relevant factors like the nature of appointment, the period of appointment, the availability of the job etc. should be properly considered for determining the issue of reinstatement.

Headnote:(a)Labour Law – Burden of proof – The burden would be on the workman to prove that he had worked for two hundred and forty days in a year – However, where both parties have adduced evidences, in most of the cases, the question would be academic. (Para 11)
       (2005) 2 SCC 183; (2002) 3 SCC 25; (2006) 1 SCC 106; 2007 10 SCALE 442; 2007 11 SCALE 409 – Relied upon.
       (b)U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 6-N and Section 25F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Whereas in the I.D. Act, the workman has to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months of the date of his termination, there is no such requirement in the case of the U.P. Act. (Para 13)
       (c)U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 6-N – Certain records may be under exclusive custody of the employer and the workmen may not be able to lay their hands thereupon and prove that they worked for requisite number of days – If the employer withholds those records, adverse inference may be drawn – The adverse inference may be express or implied and must be considered upon reading the entire Award – High Court wrongly opined that the award suffers from an error of law and was otherwise based on surmises and conjectures. (Paras 13 and 16)
       (d)U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 6-N – Reinstatement – Keeping in view the period during which the services were rendered by the respondent; the respondent stopping its operation of bee-farming, and the services of the appellants having been terminated long back; the appellants could have been directed to be re-instated in service. (Para 18)
       (e)Labour Laws – Reinstatement – Industrial Court’s discretionary jurisdiction is required to be exercised judiciously – Relevant factors like the nature of appointment, the period of appointment, the availability of the job etc. should be properly considered – Payment of adequate amount of compensation in place of re-instatement may subserve the ends of justice. (Paras 19 and 20)
       (2006) 11 SCC 684; 2007 (5) SCALE 397; 2007(3) SCALE 545 – Relied upon.
       Facts of the case:
       1.Appellants herein and in particular, some of them, claimed to have been working with the respondent institute for a long time.
       2.Their services were not being taken from 28.12.1996.
       3.They raised an industrial dispute.
       4. The Labour court held that the said orders of termination of services were bad in law.
       5.Respondent having aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith filed a Writ Petition. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the award of the Labour Court.
       Findings of the Court :
       Award of re-instatement was not justified.
       Result : Appeal allowed to the extent indicated.

judgment

S.B. Sinha, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Respondent is a research institute. It imparts training to farmers for facilitating improved agricultural production. For imparting training, fees is not charged from the trainees. The trainees are also provided free lodge and boarding. Respondent carries out its function under a deed of trust. It is a subsidiary to Indian Farmers Fertilizers Corporation. Its object is charitable. However, it is stated that the respondent institute also undertaking Poultry Farming, Pisciculture, Cow-Shelter, Dairy Farming, Plantation, Bee-keeping work etc. These jobs are undertaken by way of various projects. Daily wagers are appointed for the said purposes. The employment of daily wagers is a needbased one.

3.Appellants herein and in particular, some of them, claimed to have been working with the respondent institute for a long time. Their services were not being taken from 28.12.1996. They raised an industrial dispute. The State of U.P. in exercise of its power under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the dispute for adjudication before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P. Allahabad.

4.Before the learned Labour Court, both parties adduced their respective evidences. Some documents to show that the appellants have been working for a long time were called for from the respondents. Respondent produced only Attendance Register for December, 1996 and attendance sheet for the year 1997. Appellants examined themselves before the Labour Court. They brought on records various documents to show that even Provident Fund used to be deducted from their salary. They produced provident fund receipts for the years 1992-93 and 1994-95.

One Kamla Pati Dubey was examined on behalf of the respondent. He joined the respondent institution in the year 1988. A statement was made by him that the appellant had not worked for 240 days. He, however, in the cross-examination admitted that Muster Roll (Exhibit E-3) bears the signatures of gardener Sant Ram. He also admitted that bee farming used to be undertaken by the respondents.

The Labour Court, having regard to the fact that the respondent despite having been called upon to produce relevant records failed/neglected to do so, drew an adverse inference against it. It, furthermore, took into consideration the oral as also the documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the appellants to hold that they have worked for a period of more than 240 days. As the condition precedent for terminating the services of the appellants, as envisaged under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been complied with, the said orders of termination of services were held to be bad in law. Appellants, therefore, directed to be reinstated with 25 per cent of the back wages by an Award dated 12.4.2002.

5.Respondent having aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith filed a Writ Petition before the Allahabad High Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court set aside the award of the Labour Court inter alia opining that the burden of proof had wrongly been placed on the respondent, It was held;

“It has consistently now been held by the court that the burden of proof is on the employee who claims relief. In spite of having been granted opportunity to discharge their burden of proof by secondary evidence, it was not discharged by them. It is admitted to the parties that the workmen were daily wagers. It is the nature of appointment that is of essence and not the mode of payment–”

It was furthermore, observed that the Award was based on surmises and conjectures.

6.Appellants, are, thus before us. A limited notice, as to why the respondent should not be asked to pay adequate compensation to the appellants, was issued by this Court.

7.Mr. R.R. Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the High Court committed a serious error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that before the learned Labour Court, appellants have d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 422

2008(2) Supreme 375Supreme Court of india(From Allahabad High Court)S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.Sita Ram & Ors. — PetitionersversusMoti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute — RespondentAppeal (civil) 1769 of 2008(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20378 of 2005)Decided on : 05-03-2008

important PointRelevant factors like the nature of appointment, the period of appointment, the availability of the job etc. should be properly considered for determining the issue of reinstatement.

Cases Referred (6)

2008(2) Supreme 375
Supreme Court of india
(From Allahabad High Court)
S.B. Sinha & V.S. Sirpurkar, JJ.
Sita Ram & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
Moti Lal Nehru Farmers Training Institute — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 1769 of 2008
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20378 of 2005)
Decided on : 05-03-2008

important Point
Relevant factors like the nature of appointment, the period of appointment, the availability of the job etc. should be properly considered for determining the issue of reinstatement.