INDIAN FARMERS FERTILISER COOPERATIVE LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd., a public Undertaking, has challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal (1), Allahabad, dated 26-6-1990 published on 7th July, 1990 delivered in adjudication Case No. 14 of 1987. The Industrial Tribunal by means of the aforesaid award has held that 88 workmen, who raised the industrial dispute, were workmen of the Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd., Phulpur, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as IFFCO) and their services have been illegally terminated, they are entitled to be re-instated in service with back wages.

(2.) AN industrial dispute was raised by 88 workers against their wrongful termination of service claiming themselves to be the workers of IFFCO ; when conciliatory efforts failed, the State Government referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The terms of the reference were in the following words : Sera Yojako ke nam Bibad uthane vale Panch Sharamik Pratinidhiyon ke nam 1. Sri Ahil Kumar Mishra Thekhe- 1. Ram Jas dar dwyra Indian Farmer Fertilizer 2. Lal Chandra Co-operative Ltd. Phulpur Zila Al- 3. Vishnu Lal lahabad. 4. Brij Lal 2. Indian Farmers' Fertilizer Co- 5 Sushil Kumar Tewari operative Ltd. Phulpur, Allahabad 38, Bakshi Bazar Allahabad. Audyogik Bibad (do) ke bibran kya Seva Yojoko dwara sangalon parishisht 'ka' me ullikhit apne 88 shramiko ko unk nam ke sammukh ankit tithiyom ke karya na dena uchit tatha. Athaba baiahamk hai ? Yadi nahi, to sambandhit shramik kya labh anutosh (relief) pane ka adhikari hai, tatha anya kin vivrano sahit ?

(3.) SRI Sudhir Chandra has made the following submissions for challenging the award :- 39-A.W.C.-Suppl. (1) The award is completely outside the scope of reference. The reference was confined to the question as to whether the employer have wrongly terminated the services of 88 workmen whose list was annexed with the reference order and the relief which the workmen were entitled to get. The question that 88 workmen were employees of IFFCO alone was completely outside the scope of reference, as such the Industrial Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in holding that 88 workmen were employees of IFFCO. (2) The Tribunal has erred in law in arriving at a finding that 88 workmen were employees of IFFCO, the said finding has been recorded completely ignoring the material documentary evidence brought on record by the employer. The submission precisely is that the employer summoned the file from the Payment of Wages Authority wherein an application was moved on behalf of same 88 workmen claiming payment of wages and arraying both General Manager of IFFCO and SRI Anil Kumar Misra, the Contractor as opposite parties in the aforesaid application. The Tribunal completely ignored the said important document in arriving at a finding that 88 workmen were employees of IFFCO. (3) The application moved on behalf of 88 workmen to PAYMENT OF WAGES AUTHORITY wherein they admitted themselves to be the workmen of SRI Anil Kumar Misra, the contractor, was a categorical admission by the workmen and the Tribunal could not have bye-passed the said important admission made by the workmen in arriving at a finding holding the workmen to be workers of the IFFCO. (4) The finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that 88 workmen were employees of IFFCO is patently perverse and is based on misreading of evidence and drawing wrong conclusions from the documents and the evidence produced by the petitioners. The submission is that the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal are based on inadmissible evidence, misreading of pleadings ignoring relevant evidence and is based on conjectures and surmises. (5) The Tribunal has wrongly placed" burden of proof on IFFCO for proving that 88 workmen were not their employees. The burden was on the workmen to positively prove that they were employees of the IFFCO The contrary approach of the Tribunal is patently vitiated in law, and has resulted in wrong conclusions by the Tribunal. (6) The Tribunal was wholly unjustified in arriving at a finding that all workmen have worked 240 days continuously. There was absolutely no material on record to prove that all workmen have worked continuously for more than 240 days. In the context each workman's case was to be individually examined for arriving at the conclusion that each workman has continuously completed 240 days as workman of the principal employer. There being no material on record to that effect, the finding recorded by the Tribunal is vitiated in law.