TATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. versus SMT. SURESHWATI

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 166 · Decided: 20-01-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO, NAVIN SINHA, INDU MALHOTRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
166
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.
v.
SMT. SURESHWATI
(Civil Appeal No. 142 of 2021)
JANUARY 20, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO, NAVIN SINHA,
INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Labour Laws
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s. 25-B – Complaint – Alleging
illegal retrenchment of service – Complainant initially appointed as
Assistant Teacher in a private school and worked as such for a
period of about 11 months (from July 1993 to 21.5.1994) –
Thereafter, worked as a Clerk (from 1.7.1994 till 1.7.1997 i.e. when
she abandoned the service) – In the year 2005 the school started
receiving Grants-in-Aid and hence came to be governed by
Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006 – Complaint was filed
before the school after 9 years i.e. on 15.7.2006 alleging
retrenchment of her service on 8.3.2006 illegally – The School
Inspector, after inquiry in his report stated that the complainant
had not worked in the school since July 1997, nor was there any
leave application from her on the record – In complaint before
Labour Court, award was passed against the complainant – Writ
Petition against the award was allowed on the sole ground that no
disciplinary proceedings were initiated regarding abandonment of
service – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The onus was entirely
on the complainant to prove that she had worked for 240 days in
the preceding 12 months prior to her alleged termination, which
she failed to discharge – The school has duly established that she
had abandoned her service in 1997.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. Where an employer has failed to make an enquiry
before dismissal or discharge of a workman, it is open for him to
justify the action before the Labour Court by leading evidence
before it. The entire matter would be open before the tribunal,
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 166
166
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
167
which would have the jurisdiction to satisfy itself on the evidence
adduced by the parties whether the dismissal or discharge was
justified. [Para 14][173-A-B]
Workmen of the Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd. v.
Motipur Sugar Factory AIR 1965 SC 1803: [1965] 3
SCR 588; Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Ludh
Budh Singh (1972) 1 SCC 595 : [1972] 3 SCR 29;
Workmen of Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P)
Ltd. v. The Management of Firestone Tyre & Rubber
Co. of India (P) Ltd and Others (1973) 1 SCC 813:
[1973] 3 SCR 587 – relied on.
2. On perusal of the Award passed by the Labour Court, it
is clear that a full opportunity was given to the parties to lead
evidence, both oral and documentary, to substantiate their
respective cases. The High Court has not even adverted to the
said evidence, and has disposed of the Writ Petition of the
respondent on the sole ground that the School had not conducted
a disciplinary enquiry before discharging the respondent from
service. The School has led sufficient evidence before the Labour
Court to prove that the respondent had abandoned her service
from 01.07.1997 when she got married, and moved to another
District, which was not denied by her in her evidence. The record
of the School reveals that she was not in employment of the School
since July 1997.  [Para 15][177-G-H; 178-A-B]
3. The initial employment of the respondent as a teacher
from July 1993 to 21.5.1994 was itself invalid, since she was only
inter-mediate (as reflected in the letter dated 25.3.1996 issued
by the District Basic Education Officer, Haridwar), and did not
have the B.Ed. degree, which was the minimum qualification to
be appointed as a teacher. [Para 16][178-C]
4. The respondent has failed to prove that she had worked
for 240 days during the year preceding her alleged termination
on 8.3.2006. She has merely made a bald averment in her affidavit
of evidence filed before the Labour Court. It was open to the
respondent to have called for the records of the School i.e. the
Attendance Register and the Accounts, to prove her continuous
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS. v. SMT. SURESHWATI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
168
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
employment till 8.3.2006. Since the School was being
administered by the Government of Uttarakhand from 2005
onwards, she could have produced her Salary Slips as evidence
of her continuous employment upto 08.03.2006. However, she
failed to produce any evidence whatsoever to substantiate her
case. The onus was entirely upon the employee to prove that she
had worked continuously for 240 days’ in the twelve months
preceding the date of her alleged termination on 8.3.

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