LexM/S. SRIRAM INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD. versus MAHAK SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MIS. SRI RAM INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD. A " MAHAK SINGH AND ORS. MARCH 8, 2007 [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] B U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-ss. 2(g) and 6-N-Workmen with 4 years service-Retrenched-Dispute-Workmen filing documents showing their continuous service-Sought production of Attendance Register and other C documents from Management-Production of extract of attendance record of one year immediately preceding the retrenchment showing non-completion of 240 days in that year-Non-production of other documents-Award by the Tribunal against the workmen-Writ Petition-Award set aside drawing adverse presumption against the management for non-production of documents in its possession, holding that management failed to discharge its onus-On D appeal, held: High Court rightly set aside the award-Management failed to discharge its onus by non-production of documents-Workmen had discharged their initial onus by production of the documents in their possession-The condition precedent for retrenchment under the act is continuous service of 240 days in any calendar year during service and not the immediate preceding E year ji·om the date of retrenchment-Labour Laws-Retrenchment-Evidence Act, 872-S. 114 illustration (g)-Evidence-Burden of proof Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 226 and 227-Writ jurisdiction-- Judicial review-Of finding of facts by courts be/ow-Scope of-Held: In appropriate cases finding of facts can be interfered with-The powers of F judicial review under Article 227 empowered the High Court to ensure that inferior courts properly discharged their duties and obligations. Words and Phrases: 'Continuous service'-Meaning of in the context of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. An industrial dispute, with regard to retrenchment of the workmen- respondents was referred to the Industrial tribunal. The case of the workmen was that they were illegally retrenched as they had continuously worked from the date of their appointment for more than 240 days in a calendar year till 783 G H 784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R. A the termination of their services. Respondents produced bonus and wage slips, deduction of Provident Fund slips, attendance cards of various months and other documents available with them. They filed an application asking the management-petitioner to produce the documents in its custody i.e. Attendance Register, Payment of Bonus record and other documents relating to B engagement of the respondents as workmen. Petitioner produced only the extract of the attendance record of the last 12 calender months immediately preceding the date of their retrenchment showing that none of the workmen had worked for more than 240 days during the said period. Petitioner did not assign any cogent reason for not producing the Attendance Register of the previous years. Tribunal passed the award in favour of the management finding C that the workmen had not put in 240 days of service in the calender year preceding the termination of their sen·ices. In Writ Petition against the award, High Court held, that in view of the non-production of the documents, the petitioner failed to discharge the onus D and disprove the workmen's' claim, and hence tribunal should have drawn an adverse presumption under Section 114 illustration (g) of Evidence Act against the petitioner and that in view of the expression "continuous service" under t • Section 2(g) ofU.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, termination of the services """ of the workmen was in violation of Section 6 N of the U.P. Act. High Court E directed reinstatement of the workmen with continuity of service and halfback wages w.e.f. the date of their illegal retrenchment. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I.I The exclusion of the word "preceding" from Section 2 (g) of F the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 indicates that a workman in order to be in continuous service may have worked continuously for a period of 240 days in any calendar year during his period of service. [Para 30[ (795-G] G U.P. Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Company ltd v. Ramanuj Yadav and Ors. [2003[ 8 SCC 334, relied on. 1.2 In the light of the case made out by respondents that they had never worked as temporary hands but had worked continuously from the date of their '° appointment till the date of their retrenchment, without break, the T dbunal was persuaded on behalf of the petiti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.