The High Court · 2024
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction) L.P.A. No. 252 of 2022 The Management of M/s Safex Flame Proof Controls (Pvt.) Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, through its Manager (Finance & Accounts) Sanjay Kumar Singh, aged about 48 years, S/o Late Tapeshwar Prasad Singh, having office at Ashirwad Complex, P.O. & P.S. Nagnagar, District Dhanbad Versus …Petitioner/Appellant Their Workmen represented through workmen Md. Ibrahim Ansari, S/o. Late Baksu Ansari, R/o Godtopa, Govindpur, P.O. & P.S. Govindpur, District Dhanbad … Respondent/Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI For the Appellant For the Respondent
Legal Reasoning
--------- : Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate --------- Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J. I.A. No.8941 of 2023 5th February 2024 This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay of 97 days in preferring the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also after going through the cause shown in the Interlocutory Application seeking condonation of delay, we find sufficient grounds to condone the delay of 97 days and, accordingly, I.A. No. 8941 of 2023 is allowed. L.P.A. No. 252 of 2022 3. The Management of M/s. Safex Flame Proof Private Limited (hereinafter referred to the as ‘the Management’ for brevity) has challenged the impugned order dated 17th February 2022 passed in W.P. (L) No. 6550 of 2010 by which the challenge laid to the award dated 24th December 2009 has been rejected. -2- L.P.A. No. 252 of 2022 4. Seven workmen came together to raise a dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court by a notification dated 25th March 2004 in the following terms:- “Whether the termination of (1) Md. Ibrahim Ansari (2) Sri Purnichandra Mandal (3) Sri Kishore Kumar Bose (4) Sri Surya Sao (5) Sri Vijoy Karmakar (6) Sri Subhas Gope and (7) Sri bablu Vishwakarma without show cause by the management of M/S. Safex Flame Proof Controls (Pvt.) Limited, Nagnagar, Dhanbad, is justified? If not, what relief they are entitled to?” 5. The case pleaded by the workmen is that they were permanent employees of the Management and they were performing their duties since 3rd December 1999. However, the Management arbitrarily and illegally dismissed them from service around September 2002 without issuing a show- cause notice or conducting any enquiry. The case set up by the workmen is that they were not paid retrenchment compensation and while so, they were entitled for reinstatement in service with full back-wages. In the written statement, the Management set up a defence that the workmen were piece- rated daily wages workers. They worked at foundry and later on started working on contract basis. This is the stand of the Management that Ibrahim Ansari became gang leader and a petty contractor. The workmen started frequently absenting themselves from work on account of which the foundry work was totally suspended and finally the Management had to sell the foundry. 6. During the trial, the management examined five witnesses who deposed before the Labour Court that they were working since 1999 and the Management had been maintaining Attendance Register, Payment Register, Leave Register, etc. In the award dated 24th December 2009, the Labour Court has recorded that the Management witnesses also admitted that the aforementioned registers were being maintained and, in fact, MW1 admitted that he can produce the original registers, etc. (vide paragraph no.16 of the cross-examination). The said witness further admitted that the workmen were paid at the rate of Rs.4/- per k.g. till 2002 and the wages were enhanced thereafter to Rs.4.50 per k.g.. MW2 also stated before the Labour Court that he worked with the workmen for two years. Similarly, MW.4 also stated that the workmen were working since 1999 though as temporary workers. 7. The Labour Court passed an order on 19th December 2005 directing the Management to produce Attendance Register and other records but those records were not produced before the Labour Court. The learned -3- L.P.A. No. 252 of 2022 counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the order dated 28th December 2005 to submit that the Attendance Register and Office Order dated 20th August 2002 were produced before the Labour Court. However, the orders passed by the Labour Court on different dates thereafter indicate that no record was produced by the Management before the Labour Court and finally the matter was posted for arguments. The Labour Corut has recorded a finding in this regard in paragraph no.9 of the award, as under:- “9. All the management witnesses have admitted that the workmen concerned had been working in the company since 1999. W.W.-1 and W.W- 2 have deposed that Attendance Register, Payment Register, Leave Register etc. are maintained in the company. M.W.1, M.W.2, M.W.5 have admitted that these Register are maintained in the company. On 19.12.2005 a petition was filed on behalf of the workman in the court with a prayer for directing the management to deposit the Attendance Register, Wage Sheet Register for the period of 3.12.1999 to Sept. 2002. The petition was allowed but despite opportunities given to the management the Register were not adduced (W.W.1, W.W.2 have clearly deposed that workmen concerned worked more than 240 days every year). W.W.1 Ibrahim Ansari has mentioned monthly wages of all the seven workmen in para-11 of his deposition. Non-production of the Attendance Registers and Wage-Sheet Register despite the direction of the court makes it clear that if these Registers had been produced in the court these must have proved the above facts.” 8. It further appears that the writ Court also passed an order on 30th September 2021 for production of the original records and the records were examined by the Joint Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. This is an admitted position that the Attendance Register and other records were not found in the original records of Reference No.1 of 2004 before the Labour Court at Dhanbad. In the aforementioned circumstances, the writ Court declined to interfere with the award dated 24th December 2009 passed by the Labour Court. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that this is primarily for the workmen to establish that they had worked for 240 days so as to claim retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to the cases of Ranip Nagar Palika Vs. Babuji Gabhaji Thakore and others, (2017) 13 SCC 343; Range Forest Officer Vs ST Hadimani, (2002) 3 SCC 25 and; Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, (2004) 8 SCC 161 to fortify his submission that the Labour Court committed a serious error in law in raising an inference against the Management and held that the workmen had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. -4- L.P.A. No. 252 of 2022 10. As it would appear from the materials laid before the Labour Court, the workmen produced original Identity Card issued by the company to the workman K.Bose vide Exhibit W/1, application bears the signature of all the seven workmen vide Exhibit W/2 and Identity Card vide Exhibit W/3. On behalf of the Management, audit reports vide Exhibits M/1 to M/9 and tender enquiries of ONGC vide Exhibits M/10 to M/14 were produced. The evidence laid by the workmen that they were working under the Management since 1999 is not contradicted by the Management’s own witnesses and they admitted before the Labour Court that the workmen were working under the Management since 1999. Now in the above state of affairs, an adverse inference under illustration (g) of section 114 of the Evidence Act has rightly been drawn by the Labour Court. In our opinion, even leaving this aspect of the matter aside, the materials and evidences produced by the workmen were sufficient to conclude that they had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. None of the witnesses produced by the Management deposed before the Labour Court that the workmen were working intermittently and not continuously. 11. The powers of the writ Court to interfere with the award of inferior Tribunal is very limited. Unless it is shown to the Court that the inferior Tribunal has committed such error in law that would amount to perversity, the writ Court shall have no jurisdiction in the matter. Moreover, the writ Court while dealing with the matters arising from the Industrial Disputes Act is also enjoined to keep in mind that industrial peace and harmony is prime object behind the legislation and the writ Court shall not interfere with the award which would promote good relations between the parties. 12. Having regard to the findings recorded by the Labour Court in the award dated 24th December 2009, the writ Court rightly declined to interfere in the matter. We have also formed a similar opinion and do not find any ground to interfere with the writ Court’s order dated 17th February 2022 and, accordingly, L.P.A. No.252 of 2022 is dismissed. 13.
Decision
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of. (Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) Manoj/- (Arun Kumar Rai, J.)