M/S. MTR FOODS PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER v. SMT. AMARAVATHI

ORDER Assailing the order dated 04.10.2023 at Annexure-A passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Bangalore in I.D. No.14/2019, the petitioner-management is before this Court.

2. The respondent, aggrieved by the order of discharge, approached the Labour Court by way of claim application under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987 read with Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘the ID Act’ for short). The respondent filed an interim application under Section 10 (4) of the ID Act seeking interim relief, directing the petitioner-management to pay 100% of the current wages that were drawn by the workman.

3. The petitioner-management counter statement and also objections to the application. The Labour Court, by the impugned order, held that the workman has prima facie established for the grant of interim relief. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:16439 WP No. 27627 of 2023

4. Heard Sri Poornachandra B. Pattar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.V.P. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge the following grounds: i. The relationship of the employer and the employee between the petitioner and the respondent has ceased to exist in light of the order of discharge dated

04.08.2018 and in the absence of any relationship, the interim measure granted by the Labour Court was unjustifiable. ii. The workman has not discharged the burden cast upon her that she was not gainfully employed during the relevant period, and merely on an affidavit which is not corroborated with any evidence, the Labour Court was not justified in ordering the interim relief to the workman.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Gandhi Museum Vs. Sudhir - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:16439 WP No. 27627 of 2023 Sharma1 (National Gandhi Museum) and Management of Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department, Ranchi Vs. Their workmen represented by District Secretary2 (Management of Regional Chief Engineer).

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workman would justify the order of the Labour Court and would contend that the instant petition filed against the interim order of the Labour Court cannot be entertained. It is further contended that the Labour Court, on considering the entire material placed before it, has rightly granted interim relief to the workman, which warrants no interference from this Court.

8. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 1 (2021) 12 SCC 439 2 (2019) 18 SCC 814 - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:16439 WP No. 27627 of 2023

9. The law is well settled that the grant of interim relief is not to be made in a mechanical manner but will require application of mind to the facts and circumstances arising in the case, and on assessing the prima facie case, the order is required to be made. To establish a prima facie case, it does not mean that a full-fledged trial relating to interim relief is to be held. What needs to be borne in mind is that the principles of natural justice need to be followed. The law is also well settled that the initial burden is on the workman to plead and prove that after the dismissal from service, he was not gainfully employed anywhere and had no earning to maintain himself or / his family, on the other hand, the employer is also entitled to prove that the employee was gainfully employed during the relevant period and that he is not entitled to claim any backwages.

10. In the instant case, Labour Court held that domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. The workman filed application seeking interim relief, directing the - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:16439 WP No. 27627 of 2023 management to pay 100% of the current wages. The management filed objections stating that the Tribunal has to consider two factors while granting interim relief: a) Workman should have a prima facie case b) Workman should have no source of income to maintain a decent standard of living during the pendency of the suit / petition / application.

11. The workman, by way of affidavit, stated that from the date of dismissal till the date of filing of the application, she was without any job, as could be seen from paragraph No.5 of the affidavit. The petitioner- management, placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Management of Regional Chief Engineer stated supra, contended workman has to necessarily plead and prove with the aid of the evidence that, after her dismissal from the service, she is not gainfully employed anywhere and has not earned enough to maintain herself or her family. If such a contention was raised by the petitioner-management, they - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:16439 WP No. 27627 of 2023 sought to have produced any evidence to substantiate the pleading in the said context, when the fact remains that the workman can plead and prove by placing an affidavit and leading evidence that she is not gainfully employed elsewhere, but the employer can prove atleast by placing material to the effect that the workman is working in some other establishment and she has been gainfully employed. The workman can discharge his burden by affidavit at the most by leading evidence, but the management could have produced atleast a piece of evidence to shut out the case of the workman that he is not gainfully employed. There cannot be any material evidence to be let in by the workman to say that he is not gainfully employed.

12. In the light of the present facts, which is noticed by this Court as against the averments made by the respondent-workman in the application seeking interim relief, the petitioner-management has only objected to the said application, but has not produced any documents to relate to the aspect that the workman has been gainfully - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:16439 WP No. 27627 of 2023 employed elsewhere. The proposition laid down in the case of National Gandhi Museum and Management of Regional Chief Engineer placed reliance by petitioner-management is the proposition of law that it is the burden on the employee to come out with the case that he was not gainfully employed during the relevant period and the burden shifts on the employer to establish that the workman is gainfully employed elsewhere, on the employee discharging his initial burden.

13. In instant case, the workman has categorically stated in her affidavit that she is not gainfully employed, no materials are forthcoming to corroborate that the workman is been gainfully employed elsewhere. The Labour Court, having found a prima facie case has been established, has ordered interim relief. The Apex Court in the case of D.P. Maheshwari vs Delhi Admn. & Ors3 placed reliance by the learned counsel for the respondent-workman, it is clear that the Court will not 3 1983 (4) SCC 293 - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:16439 WP No. 27627 of 2023 entertain the petition arising out of the interim orders passed by the Labour Courts or such other Tribunal, the reason being when the Labour Court on prima facie arrived at a conclusion on an issue and if such orders are allowed to be assailed at every stage, it would result in breaking the resistance of workman due to the delay that may be caused in adjudication of the main dispute until the interim issue is decided by the higher forum.

14. As noticed in the instant case, the workman was discharged from service on 04.08.2018, the industrial dispute was raised in the year 2019, the workman filed application seeking interim relief in the year 2021 and the Labour Court, considering all these aspects, has rightly held that the workman is entitled to interim relief of 50% of her last drawn salary from the date of the order i.e.,

04.10.2023, which this Court is of the considered view that the same does not warrant any interference and accordingly, this Court pass the following: - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:16439 WP No. 27627 of 2023 ORDER i. Writ petition is hereby dismissed. ii. The impugned order passed on I.A.No.2 dated

04.10.2023 stands confirmed. Sd/- JUDGE MBM