RAMAVADH RAMMATHORAN KANOJIA Vs. V V SAVAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working with respondent No. 2 as an ironer on piece rate basis. His case is that he was working with the respondent No. 2 for a period of three years from 1979. His services were illegally terminated by respondent No. 2 management on 1-2-1982. Thereafter he approached the Labour Commissioner and later the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. No settlement having been arrived at in conciliation proceedings conducted by the Deputy commissioner of Labour, a failure report was submitted to the appropriate Commissioner whereby a reference was made under Sections 10 (1) and 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act") to the Labour Court at Bombay. Before the second labour Court at Bombay, which heard the reference, the contention of the management was that the petitioner was only working for a period of one year and that he was not a workman but an independent contractor. It was also the case of the management that it was not a case of termination but abandonment of the hob by the workman himself. The Labour Court framed five issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. The first issue was whether the petitioner was a workman, within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The second issue was whether his services were illegally terminated by the management on 1-2-1982 as mentioned in the statement of claim or whether the petitioner left the services of respondent No. 2 voluntarily after settling his accounts as mentioned in the written statement. On those three issues, on consideration of the evidence of the witnesses and on perusal of the documents, the Labour Court came to a conclusion that the petitioner was not an independent contractor but he was a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act. The Labour Court also did not accept the contention of the management that the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned the employment. He recorded a finding that the services of the petitioner were terminated by the management on 1-2-1982 as mentioned in the statement of the claim. The other issues was whether the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service with effect from 1-2-1982. The other issue related to entitlement to back wages and the last issue was as to what relief, if any, the petitioner was entitled to. In regard to the above three issues, the Labour Court took into the account the statement of the petitioners that he was working with the respondent No. 2 for three years and that his services were terminated on 1-2-1982. The Court also took note of the fact that the normal rule in such cases was to grant reinstatement. The Labour Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case however, did not grant reinstatement or back wages to the petitioner but in lieu thereof granted a compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,800/ -. This amount was calculated as the amount which the petitioner would have been entitled to for a period of 12 months at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month. Dealing with this aspects, the Labour court observed that though it had held that the petitioner to be a workman and ignored the letter given by him to the respondent No. 2 which has also been authenticated by two witnesses on 11-2-1981 on the ground that it was not a bilateral agreement between the management and the workman, the same cannot be ignored in considering the terms and conditions of employment. The fact of existence of the said letter and the contents thereof cannot be altogether ignored. The Labour court observed that though the document in question was not a bilateral agreement between the management and the worker but on that ground the existence of the same cannot be denied by the workman and he cannot be permitted to take advantage of the technicalities. The Court also observed a number of statements of the petitioner in his deposition wherein he had denied his signatures including the signature even on his own statement of claim and observed that considering the totality of the facts it appears that he was not telling the truth. Considering all these factors the Labour Court held that the petitioner was entitled to compensation and not to reinstatement. On the question of compensation it observed that even taking into account the period of service to be 3 years as contended by the workman, compensation equivalent to 12 months' salary was sufficient in lieu of reinstatement. In regard to the rate of salary it found that though the workman had contended in his statement of claim that he was getting Rs. 900/- per month, he had failed to produce any evidence in support of the same. The management had produced a statement showing how it had paid the amounts to the workman. The statement and the vouchers showed that the workman was not getting more than Rs. 400/- per month. In such a situation, it held that compensation at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month would be a reasonable compensation. On the basis of this evidence, it determined the amount of compensation payable to the workman in lieu of reinstatement at Rs. 4,800/- being the amount equivalent to 12 months salary.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court having held that the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Act and his services were illegally terminated, it was incumbent on its part to direct reinstatement. In support of his contention the learned counsel placed reliance on a number of decision of the Supreme Court wherein it had been held that in case of illegal termination the normal rule is to grant reinstatement with back wages. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submitted that though the Courts normally awarded reinstatement of workmen there in are cases where the facts and circumstances did not so justify. According to the learned counsel, the present case is one of those cases where reinstatement was not at all justified. He submitted the finding of the Labour Court that the petitioner was a workman also had to be read in the background of the statement of respondent No. 2 that he was an independent contractor. The petitioner was a piece rate worker and with respondent No. 2 he was working as an ironer. A document in the form of a letter addressed to respondent No. 2 signed by the petitioner himself is on record. According to the learned counsel this document clearly goes to show the terms of employment and the petitioner who is a signatory to it cannot get out of it on the plea that this is in the form of a letter and not a bilateral agreement between the parties. The learned counsel further submits that the entire conduct of the workman in this case, which has been set out in detail by the Labour Court, clearly goes to show that the petitioner was not entitled to any reinstatement or back wages. The Labour Court has categorically recorded its finding that the petitioner made false statements before the Court in his deposition. The petitioner even failed to prove the amount claimed to be his wages or salary. He even denied the signature of his own statement of claim. It is on consideration of all these factors that the Labour Court found the conduct of the petitioner unsatisfactory and his statement not trustworthy. Despite all that the labour Court decided to award compensation equivalent to 12 months salary to the workman who on his own admission had worked only for a period of three years and according to the management only for one year. No fault can be found with this finding of the Labour Court submits the learned counsel for respondent No. 2.

(3.) THE learned counsel also placed reliance on a number of decisions of the Supreme Court, this court and other Courts in support of his contention that the Labour court is entitled to award compensation as it deems fit in suitable cases keeping in view the conduct of the workman and is not bound in all cases to grant reinstatement with back wages.