Heeraman Banjare v. C.G. Infrastructure Devlop. Corp. And ORS.
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 6223 of 2007 Heeraman Banjara, S/o. Mahajan Banjara, Aged about 43 years, R/o. Village Dumrha, Post Office Khaprikala, Tahsil Lormi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, through: Managing Director, New Bus Stand, Pandri, Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation, through: its Divisional Manager (Tran. Division), Bilaspur Division, Bus Stand, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
3. The State Industrial Court, Through: its Member Judge, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
4. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :
Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate along with Mr. Lav Sharma, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 :
Mr. R.N. Pusty, Advocate along with Mr. Pallav Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 28/02/2018 1.
Present is a writ petition. Challenge is to the order dated 02.08.2006, passed by the State Industrial Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, in Civil Appeal No. 44/CGIR Act/A-II/2006. Vide the impugned award, the Industrial Court had set-aside the order of reinstatement without back wages dated 29.04.2006, passed by the Labour Court, Bilaspur in Case No. 391/CGIR Act/2004.
2.
The brief fact of the case is that the worker involved in the instant case i.e. the petitioner was initially engaged by the respondentsCorporation as a Driver. He had contended that he was engaged for the first time on 02.03.1996 and he continued to discharge his duties
till 22.12.2002. It was further contended that after 22.12.2002, the respondents-Corporation abruptly discontinued the services of the petitioner. This forced the petitioner to raise a dispute under Section 31(3) of the MPIR Act before the Labour Court Bilaspur, where the case was registered as Case No. 391/CGIR Act/2004. The respondents-Corporation entered appearance before the Labour Court and submitted their written statement which is also marked as Annex.P/12 with the present writ petition and in the written statement the Corporation took the stand that the status of the petitioner was that of a 'Badli Worker'. However, in the written statement they do not deny the aspect of employment of the petitioner since March, 1996.
3.
Further, the contents of the written statement reflects that the petitioner was continuously engaged and minor damages caused to the vehicle which was being run by the present petitioner, the Corporation had been imposing penalty upon the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner himself entered appearance before the Labour Court and gave specific details in respect of his employment and adduced his evidence and also categorically stted that he has been abruptly discontinued from service without being granted any compensation for his retrenchment or any notice or salary in lieu of notice given to him. It was the contention of the petitioner that the action on the part of the respondents was amounts to illegal termination.
4.
Proceeding before the Labour Court shows that the respondentsCorporation was granted ample opportunity to lead evidence, but inspite of sufficient opportunity being granted, the respondents-
Corporation did not lead any evidence before the Labour Court to substantiate any of their contentions.
5.
In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court vide its order dated 29.04.2006 allowed the application and ordered for reinstatement without back wages. This order dated 29.04.2006 was subjected to challenge before the State Industrial Act under Section 65 of the CGIR Act, where the case was registered as Civil Appeal No. 44/CGIR Act/A-II/2006. The Industrial Court however setaside the order of reinstatement. The ground of setting aside of reinstatement was that the petitioner herein has not brought any documentary proof to establish his continuous employment of more than 240 days in the calendar year before the Labour Court and the burden was upon the worker, who has established the continuous employment and thus the Industrial Court set-aside the order of the Labour Court and held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. 6.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner had produced sufficient evidence before the Courts below by entering into the witness box and adducing the facts of the case so far as his employment and his continuous part is concerned. Further, it was also contended that the employment part stood admitted in the written statement of the respondents-Corporation and therefore, non-production of any documentary proof by the petitioner could not had been treated as vital by the Industrial Court and thus prayed for setting aside of the order of the Industrial Court and also prayed for relief of reinstatement in service. 7.
The counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation however opposing the petition submits that the finding of the Industrial Court
is proper, legal and justified, in as much as the worker in fact has not produced any documentary proof to show that he was in fact the regular employee and he has worked continuously for a period more than 240 days preceding his discontinuous. It was further contended by the respondents-Corporation that the CSIDC is not the employer of the petitioner and they cannot be fastened with the liability of the reinstating the petitioner as the petitioner was admittedly an employee engaged by the erstwhile MPSRTC. The respondentsCorporation relied upon two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. "R.M. Yellatti v. Asstt. Executive Engineer" reported in (2006) 1 SCC 106 and "Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. S.G. Kotturappa and Another" reported in (2005) 3 SCC 409.
8.
Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record the factum of employment stands proved from the written statement which has been filed by the respondents-Corporation before the Labour Court. The respondents-Corporation has categorically admitted the fact of engagement of the petitioner as a 'Badli Worker'. Later it also reveals from the written statement that he was in continuous employment as there was a series of penalty orders which has been referred to by the respondents-Corporation in their written statement. The series of penalty orders referred to in the written statement is of a span of 14 months and these 14 months were preceding the period of termination from service. Under the circumstances, from the averments made in the written statement itself, the petitioner's status of an employee stands established. Further, it also establishes his working from more than 240 days.
9.
Thus, in the light of the written statement filed by the respondentsCorporation before the Labour Court, the fact of 240 days of employment stood proved and established on the basis of the admission by the Corporation in their written statement. In the light of the averments made by the Corporation in the written statement, the finding of the Industrial Court of the worker having not proved or established having worked for 240 days stands controverted and the finding thus is contrary to evidence and can safely be held to be a perverse finding. As a consequence of the finding of the Industrial Court being perverse, the order deserves to be and is accordingly set-aside restoring the order of the Labour Court dated 29.04.2006 that of reinstatement without back wages.
10.
So far as the two judgments referred to by the respondentsCorporation, the facts of those cases are entirely different as compared to the facts of the present case. Moreover, in the instant case, the written statement of the respondents-Corporation itself gives a sufficient indication of a continuous employment, which was not the case in the two cases referred and therefore the same is distinguishable.
11.
Further, so far as the liability part is concerned, this Court has no hesitation in holding that once when the CSIDC itself was constituted for taking care of the assets and liability of the erstwhile MPSRTC. Moreover, there is also a recent notification of the respondentsCorporation dated 16.02.2016, whereby the CSIDC has made their intention clear to receive the entire assets, liabilities and the employees of the MPSRTC.
12.
In the light of the said notification, the objection so far as the liability part also stands negated. As a consequence, the writ petition stands allowed. The order of Industrial Court stands set-aside/quashed and the order of the Labour Court stands restored. 13.
The writ petition stands allowed and disposed. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved