LexSITA RAM & ORS versus MOTI LAL NEHRU FARMERS TRAINING INSTITUTE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2008] 4 S.C.R. 471 SITA RAM & ORS. II. MOTi LAL NEHRU FARMERS TRAINING INSTITUTE (Civil Appeal No. 1769 of 2008) MARCH 5, 2008 [S.8. SINHA AND V. S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] A B Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - s. 6 N - Appointment of daily wagers on project work - Termination - Industrial dispute - Employees claiming, having long service c - Labour court calling for relevant documents from the employer to prove the claim - Production of irrelevant documents - Employees producing documents supporting their claim - Labour court holding the termination as illegal and directing reinstatement - High Court setting aside the 0 award - On appeal, held: Termination rightly held to be illegal - Since the project for which the employees were employed, has been stopped, order of reinstatement not correct - Payment of adequate amount of compensation would subserve the ends of justice. Respondent-Institute was a research institute. Its object t"Jas charitable. However, it also undertoo!t poultry fClrmlng, Plsciculture, Bee-lteeping etc; by way of Vllrious projects. Dllily wagers were appointed for these projects E on need bc:isis. When the services of the appellants were F. stopped to be talten from December, 1996 they raised an industriEI dispute claiming that they had been wor!dng for a long time. Labour Court called for some documents from the respondent-employer to show that the appellants had been rJor!dng for a long time. Respondent produced G only Attendance Register for December, 1996 and attendtince shoet for year 1997. Appellants brought on record various documents showirtg deduction of Provident Fund pertaining to years 1992-93 and 1994-95. 471 H 472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 4 SC R A Labour Court drawing an adverse inference against the employer held that the appellants had worked for more than 240 days and their termination was bad in law due to non-compliance of condition precedent as envisaged .u/ s 6 N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court B directed their reinstatement. In writ petition,. High Court set aside the- award holding that burden of proof was wrongly placed on the employer and that the award was based on surmises and conjectures. Hence the present appeal. C Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 It 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, 0 in most of the cases, the question would be academic. [Para 11] (477-E, F] DGM Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd and Anr. vs. llias Abdulrehman 2005 2 SCC 163; Range Forest Officer vs. S. T Hadimani 2002 (3) SCC 25; R.M. Yellatti vs Asstt. E Executive Engineer 2006 (1) SCC 106; State of Maharashtra vs.' Dattatraya Digamber Birajdar 2007 (10) SCALE 442; Ganga Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. vs. Jaivir Singh 2007 (11) SCALE 409 - referred to. · . 1.2 Appellants have brought on records atleast some F documentary evidences to show that they have been working at least for two years. ·even provident fund had been deducted frorn their wages. Each of the appellant examined himself before the Labour Court. They had called for the requisite documents. The documents G produced before the Labour Court were wholly irrelevant, as the services. of the workman were terminated in December •. 1~~6 itself. What was called for from them was the documents for ttle period during which the appellants claimed to have been working with the respondent. It H appears from the records that, the wages were being paid SITA RAM & ORS. v. MOTi LAL NEHRU FARMERS 473 TRAINING INSTITUTE in a wage-sheet a·nd no pay slip used to be issued A therefor. Appellants, thus, were not expected to produce · any pay slip. No exception therefore, can be taken to the findings of the Labour Court. [Paras 14 and 15] [479-A-D] 1.3 It is evident that the respondents have withheld . B the best evidence; The wage sheet, the provident fund . records and other documents were in their possession. 'They were statutorily required to maintain some documents. It may be true that the Labour Court did not ·draw any adverse inference expressly, but whether such an adverse inference has been drawn or not must be C considered upon reading the entire Award. The High Court, has wrongly opined that the award suffers from an error of law and was otherwise based on surmises and conjectures. [Para 16] [479-D-F] 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.