THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TWAD BOARD & ANOTHER versus M. NATESAN ETC.

Citation: [2019] 7 S.C.R. 862 · Decided: 10-05-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
862
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TWAD BOARD &
ANOTHER
v.
M. NATESAN ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 4875-4884 of 2019)
MAY 10, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947– s.17-B– Between 1986-89, the
respondents-workmen were engaged temporarily as Store Watchman
on daily wages in newly created Sectional stores in various Sub
Divisions under the control of Rural Water Supply (RWS) Divisions,
Nagercoil – Engagement Order mentioned that the services will be
terminated when the requirement is over and that they cannot claim
any further appointment in the appellant-Board – Sectional stores
closed– Respondents terminated – Labour Court directed
reinstatement of the respondents with back wages for the period of
non-employment and with continuity of service – Single Judge
affirmed the award to the extent of reinstatement of the workmen
and held that since the matter was pending from 1991, the
respondents were entitled to get 50% back wages only – Writ appeal
– Dismissed – Held: For temporary workers like respondents, it is
mandatory to show that they continuously worked for 240 days in
a year – Initial burden is on them to adduce evidence – Only when
the initial burden is discharged by the respondents, the burden can
be shifted on the appellant – Single Judge and the Division Bench
not right in placing the burden on the appellant to prove that the
respondents had not worked continuously for 240 days in a year –
However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this
question not gone into any further as most of the respondents have
attained the age of superannuation therefore, there is no question
of reinstatement – Amount already paid to each of the respondents
(including Rs.2 lakhs ordered by the Supreme Court as condition
for stay of the impugned judgment) shall be in full quit of all claims
including 50% back wages and also the quantum of compensation
in lieu of reinstatement – In appeal arising out of Writ Appeal
No.1439 of 2016, Rs.2 lakhs be paid by the appellant to the legal
   [2019] 7 S.C.R. 862
862
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
863
representatives of the Respondent-since deceased – Amount lying
in the deposit of Labour Court/High Court along with accrued
interest be refunded to the appellant – Order passed in the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, not a precedent.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 For temporary worker like NMR respondents,
it is mandatory to show that they have continuously worked for
240 days in a year. The initial burden is upon the respondents-
workmen to adduce evidence showing that they have worked
continuously for 240 days. Only when the initial burden is
discharged by the respondents-workmen, the burden can be
shifted upon the appellant-Board.  Both the Single Judge as well
as the Division Bench were not right in placing the burden upon
the appellant-Board to prove that the respondents-workmen had
not worked continuously for 240 days in a year.  However, in the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this question is not
gone into any further as most of the respondents have attained
the age of superannuation therefore, there is no question of
reinstatement. [Para 9] [865-F-H; 866-A]
1.2 The amount already paid to each of the respondents
(including Rs.2,00,000/- ordered by the Supreme Court) shall be
in full quit of all claims including 50% back wages and also the
quantum of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In appeal
arising out of Writ Appeal No.1439 of 2016) Rs.2,00,000/- shall
be paid by the appellant-Board to the legal representatives of
the respondent-since deceased. The amount lying in the deposit
of Labour Court/High Court along with accrued interest is
ordered to be refunded to the appellant-Board. The above order
is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and
may not be quoted as a precedent. [Paras 11, 12] [867-B-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4875-
4884 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2016 by the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal Nos. 1434-1443 of 2016.
C. Paramasivam, Vinodh Kanna B., Advs. for the Appellants.
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER TWAD BOARD v.
M. NATESAN ETC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
864
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 7 S.C.R.
Ms. Sanya Kumar, N. K. Verma, Trideep Pais, Ms. Sanya Su,
Ms. Anjana Chandrashekar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave

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