R.M. YELLATTI versus THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 1010 · Decided: 07-11-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
R.M. YELLATTI 
V. 
THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER 
NOVEMBER 7, 2005 
[S.N. VARIAVA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.) 
Labour and Services 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sec.258, Sec.25F-Retrenchment-
Workman-Daily wageworker removedfi·om employment-Reference by State 
Government-Letter by employer filed in evidence-Management failing ·to 
produce Nominal Muster Roll for entire period-Held, workman has proved 
that he has worked continuously for 240 days and therefore entitled to 
reinstatement with 50% backwages. 
Constitution of India-Ari. 226-Award by Industrial Tribunal after 
appreciation of evidence-Held, High Court will not interfere with the 
concurrent findings of fact recorded by iabour court-Principles re-stated 
Appellant was appointed as a daily wage earner by the Respondent 
E on 26.11.1988 and worked up to 20.6.19'94, on which day his services were 
terminated. On termination, appellant claimed that he had continuously 
worked for more than 240 days immediately prior to 20.6.1994 and that 
his services were wrongly terminated without complying with the 
provisions of section 25-F of the lndust:rial Disputes Act, 1947. The above 
F 
industrial dispute was referred by the State Government to the labour 
court. The management resisted the reference and contended that the 
appellant was not a worker in terms of section 2(s) of the 1947 Act and 
consequently, he was not entitled to claim benefit of section 25-F of the 
said Act; that the "Irrigation departm1:nt" was not an "industry" under 
the said 1947 Act and consequently, the· question of compliance of section 
G 25-F did not arise, and that the reference was time barred. 
The labour court by its award held that the appellant was appointed 
as daily waged earner and that he was a workman under section 2(s) of 
the 1947 Act. The labour court found on facts and on the basis of evidence 
led before it that the appellant had worked continuously for more than 
H 
1010 
) 
RM. YELLA Tfl l'. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER 
1011 
240 days prior to 20.6.1994 and, that the then Assistant Executive Engineer A 
had issued a certificate (Ex. Wl) to this effect; that although the appellant 
had been cross-examined on behalf of the management, there was no 
materi.al to disbelieve the certificate. Further, the labour court came to 
the conclusion that the management had suppressed the material evidence 
from the Court. 
The labour court directed the management to reinstate the appellant 
as a daily wager with 50% back wages from the date of the award till the 
date of reinstatement. The management challenged the award by a writ 
petition which was dismissed in limine. 
On writ appeal the Division Bench held that the certificate produced 
by the appellant (Ex.WI) nowhere stated that the appellant was in 
continuous service for 240 days; that there was no evidence on record to 
show that the certificate was in fact issued by Asstt. Executive Engineer 
and that the records produced by the department showed that Ex. Wl was 
B 
c 
a fabricated document; that the appellant had failed to produce the letter D 
of appointment, letter of termination or receipts indicating payment of 
monthly salary; that except the self-serving statement of the appellant in 
the witness box, there was nothing on record to support his case of having 
worked for 240 days. The Division Bench quashed the award passed by 
the labour court in favour of the appellant and also set aside the order of E 
the Single Judge. 
Before this Court the appellant contended that the division bench 
ought not ti! have interfered with the concurrent findings given by the 
award of the labour court and the judgment of the single judge; that there 
was no perversity in the findings recorded by the labour court; that full F 
opportunity was given to the management to produce its records; that the 
management suppressed the Nominal Muster Rolls (NMRs) which 
indicated that the appellant had worked for the entire period; that in any 
event, the entire record was not produced before the labour court despite 
the management being asked by the court to do so and, therefore, the G 
labour court was right in coming to the conclusion that the management 
had suppressed its records from the court; that the workman had stepped 
into witness box and produced the certificate (Ex. Wl) and that both the 
labour court and the single judge had accepted its correctness and, 
therefore, the Division Bench ought not to ha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.