GLOSTER LIMITED Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has assailed the award dated 05.10.2012 passed by the First Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal at Calcutta directing the reinstatement of the respondent No. 4 with 75% back wages from 17.06.2003 till the actual reinstatement in service. Admittedly, the petitioner was a Registered Badli Worker and was entrusted to the work of twist job. It is also not in dispute that the respondent No. 4 worked in such capacity between 09.01.1991 and 16.06.2003. Subsequently, the petitioner was struck off from the list of the Registered Badli because of his continuous long absence. The management of the petitioner, subsequently, re-inducted the respondent No. 1 and admitted in the list of a Registered Badli and offered him the job on 23.01.2005 for three hours. However, according to the respondent No. 4, he was unreasonably and illegally denied the employment since 17.06.2003, although he reported to the window of the Badli Worker. On 15th March, 2005, the petitioner raised a dispute under section 2A of the Industrial Dispute Act alleging his termination on 17.06.2003 before the Conciliation Officer of the State of West Bengal. Since the Conciliation proceeding could not yield any fruitful result, the certificate was issued by the said Conciliation Officer and an application under section 10(1)(B) of the Industrial Dispute Act was filed by the respondent No. 4 before the First Labour Court, West Bengal. The application relating to the claim filed before the Labour Court reveals that the respondent No. 4 was registered as per the standing orders of the Company as Badli and have continuously worked from 09.01.1991 till 17.06.2003 when the alleged termination was made by the petitioner. The said respondent claimed to be a workman within the definition of the Industrial Dispute Act and the entire claim laid upon the assertion that he has continuously worked more than 240 days in a year and, therefore, the alleged termination of service by way of a refusal to employment is unjustified and should be re-instated with full back wages.

(2.) The petitioner in the written statement not only denied that the petitioner has not worked continuously for 240 days in a year but have also took a plea that the Badli Workers does not have any right to claim the regular employment and/or work. The Labour Court allowed the respective parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective stands and passed an award directing the reinstatement of the respondent No. 4 in service with 75% back wages from the date of termination till the actual reinstatement is made.

(3.) Mr. Partha Bhanja Chowdhury, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner attacked the said award on two fold grounds, firstly, the Labour Court has wrongly fastened the onus to prove that the respondent No. 4 has not worked 240 days in a year preceding his termination and secondly, the Badli Workers have no right to be employed and consequently not entitle to any compensation. In support of his first point of attack, he placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in case of Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, 2002 3 SCC 25 and Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas, 2004 8 SCC 195. So far as the second point of attack is concerned, Mr. Partha Bhanja Chowdhury relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2004 8 SCC 161, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation v. T.V. Anandappa, 2009 17 SCC 473 and Prakash Cotton Mills Put. Ltd. v. Rashtriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh, 1986 3 SCC 588.