Madras High Court
A.Chinna @ Lakshmi vs The Presiding Officer on 16 August, 2023
W.P.No.13799 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
W.P.No.13799 of 2010
A.Chinna @ Lakshmi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Salem
2.The Management,
Glazebrooke Estate 'C',
Keeraikadu Post,
Yercaud 636 601 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records from the respondent Labour Court, Salem relating to its award
dated 16.04.2009 in ID.No.120 of 2003, quash the same and
consequently direct the respondent management to reinstate the petitioner
in service with effect from 30.10.2002 with full backwages, continuity of
service, consequential and other attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.Ramesh,
Senior Counsel
for Mr.V.Sivaraman
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13799 of 2010
For Respondents
R1 : Court
For R2 : Ms.Nilani
for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated
16.04.2009 passed in ID.No.120 of 2003 thereby rejected the request to
reinstate the petitioner into service.
2. Heard, the learned counsel appearing on either side.
3. The case of the petitioner is that she had worked in the
second respondent estate for 15 years. She was not issued salary slip and
not given other legal rights. Therefore, she joined in the Neelamalai
Plantation Workers Union and reported about the non issuance of salary
slip and other benefits. Hence, the Inspector inspected the second
respondent estate and all the workers were asked to sign in the white
paper. Thereafter they were denied employment from 30.10.2002.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13799 of 2010
4. However, on perusal of records, revealed that the petitioner
was a casual labourer worked now and then whenever there was work.
She never worked continuously for 15 years. In fact, the petitioner is
having land and after completion of her cultivation work she used to go
for daily wages as a Coolie in the neighbourhood plantations. If any
plantation owner gives little more wages than the other plantation owners,
she used to leave work in one plantation and fled to other plantation.
Therefore, she was working as daily Coolie.
5. Mr.K.M.Ramesh, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner submitted that even as per the management witness, it is
category admitted that the workman had 11 months work and one month
leave. Out of 11 months, coffee was harvested for 3 months and she
would be engaged in other work for remaining months. Therefore, once
the workman get into box and proved that she worked for more than 240
days per year, the burden of proof is shifted on the shoulder of the
management to disprove the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13799 of 2010
6. It is relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of R.M.Yelatti Vs. The Assistant
Executive Engineer reported in (2006) 1 SCC 106, wherein it is held as
follows:
17. Analyzing the above decisions of this court, it is
clear that the provisions of the Evidence Act in terms do
not apply to the proceedings under section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act. However, applying general
principles and on reading the aforestated judgments, we
find that this court has repeatedly taken the view that the
burden of proof is on the claimant to show that he had
worked for 240 days in a given year. This burden is
discharged only upon the workman stepping in the
witness box. This burden is discharged upon the workman
adducing cogent evidence, both oral and documentary. In
cases of termination of services of daily waged earner,
there will be no letter of appointment or termination.
There will also be no receipt or proof of payment. Thus in
most cases, the workman (claimant) can only call upon the
employer to produce before the court the nominal muster
roll for the given period, the letter of appointment or
termination, if any, the wage register, the attendance
register etc. Drawing of adverse inference ultimately
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13799 of 2010
would depend thereafter on facts of each case. The above
decisions however make it clear that mere affidavits or
self-serving statements made by the claimant/workman
will not suffice in the matter of discharge of the burden
placed by law on the workman to prove that he had
worked for 240 days in a given year. The above
judgments further lay down that mere non-production of
muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the
claimant workman will not be the ground for the tribunal
to draw an adverse inference against the management.
Lastly, the above judgments lay down the basic principle,
namely, that the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution will not interfere with the concurrent findings
of fact recorded by the labour court unless they are
perverse. This exercise will depend upon facts of each
case.
7. Thus it is clear that mere filing affidavits or self-serving
statements made by the workman will not suffice in the matter of
discharge of the burden placed by law on the workman to prove that he
had worked for 240 days in a given year. Therefore, mere non-production
of muster rolls per se without any plea of suppression by the workman
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13799 of 2010
will not be the ground for the tribunal to draw an adverse inference
against the management. Therefore, the above judgment is squarely
applicable to the case on hand. In the case on hand, the petitioner /
workman failed to prove that she worked for 240 days per year. That
apart, it is also seen from the evidence that the petitioner worked only
100 days in a year. It is not the evidence of the petitioner that she was not
paid any salary for the day he worked. Whenever there was work, she
was paid daily wages. Therefore, she had not worked continuously and
permanently. Hence, the petitioner failed to prove that she was a
permanent workman and worked more than 240 days prior to the date of
refusal of the work. Therefore the Labour Court rightly dismissed the
claim petition and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order
passed by the first respondent.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
16.08.2023
Internet: Yes
Index: Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13799 of 2010
Speaking/Non-speaking order
lok
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.13799 of 2010
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
lok
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Salem
2.The Management,
Glazebrooke Estate 'C',
Keeraikadu Post,
Yercaud 636 601
3. The Government Advocate,
High Court, Madras.
W.P.No.13799 of 2010
16.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
