- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Airtech Private Ltd. v. State Of U.P And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
A reference under Section 4-K read with Section 2-A of the U.P Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was made by the State Government to the Labour Court for adjudication of an industrial dispute between the employer and an individual workman. The question was whether the termination of the workman’s services by the employer from a certain date was justified or lawful, and if not, what relief the workman was entitled to.
Both parties filed written statements before the Labour Court. The Labour Court ordered the employer to lead evidence first. The workman applied for the right to lead evidence first, but the Court rejected this application, holding that the burden of proof lay on the employer to establish the legality or justifiability of the termination. The employer challenged this order by filing the present petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the burden of proof in a reference under the U.P Industrial Disputes Act lies on the employer or the workman when adjudicating the justifiability of termination of services.
- Whether the Labour Court’s procedure in insisting that the employer lead evidence first was correct in law.
Arguments of the Parties
Employer's Arguments
- The Labour Court erred in placing the burden of proof on the employer based on the terms of the reference.
- The employer contended that the burden of proof lies on the workman who files an affidavit in support of his written statement, which constitutes preliminary evidence.
- The employer argued that if the workman fails to lead evidence, the case would fail in his favour, and thus it was not necessary for the employer to lead evidence first.
Workman's Arguments
- The workman sought to lead evidence first, arguing presumably that the burden of proof was on the employer as per the Labour Court’s direction.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Shankar Chaudhary v. Britannia Biscuits Co. Ltd. | Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal must treat proceedings with all trappings of a court; the party making an allegation must lead evidence; the test of burden is who fails if no evidence is led. | The Court relied on this precedent to affirm that the obligation to prove lies on the party making an allegation and that the workman must lead evidence to succeed. |
| V.K Raj Industries v. Labour Court | Similar principle that the party making an allegation must lead evidence to establish it. | The Court cited this Division Bench decision to support the principle regarding burden and onus of proof in Labour Court proceedings. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the relevant statutory provisions, specifically Section 5C(1) of the U.P Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 12 of the U.P Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957. It held that the procedure prescribed allows the workman to file a written statement accompanied by an affidavit, which constitutes preliminary evidence. If the employer does not repudiate this affidavit, the Labour Court must accept the contents as true and award accordingly.
The Court distinguished between the burden of proof and the onus of proof, emphasizing that the burden of proof does not shift, but the onus may shift during proceedings. The Labour Court erred in holding that the burden lay on the employer based on the terms of the reference.
Further, the Court reasoned that if no evidence is led, the party who would fail is the workman, especially since the reference was made at the workman’s instance. Thus, the employer need not lead evidence first if the workman fails to produce evidence.
The Court supported its reasoning by referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Shankar Chaudhary and a Division Bench decision in V.K Raj Industries, which confirm that the party making an allegation must lead evidence and that the Labour Court proceedings have the characteristics of a court trial.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Labour Court dated 11th May, 1983 is quashed. The Labour Court is directed to proceed with the hearing of the dispute in accordance with the observations made regarding the burden and onus of proof.
Similar orders passed by other Labour Courts in related writ petitions are also quashed and those Courts are directed to resume hearings in light of this judgment. There is no order as to costs in these writ petitions.
The direct effect of this decision is to clarify the procedural approach regarding burden of proof in Labour Court adjudications under the U.P Industrial Disputes Act, without setting a new precedent beyond the application of existing statutory provisions and case law.
S.K Dhaon, J.:— A reference under Section 4-K read with Section 2-A of the U.P Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was made by the State Government to Labour Court for the adjudication of an industrial dispute between the employers and its individual workman. The English rendering of the term of the reference was somewhat like this whether the termination of the services of the workman by the employers from a certain date is justified/lawful if not to what relief etc. is the workman entitled.
2. Before the Labour Court the employers and the workmen filed their respective written statements. It appears that the Labour Court insisted that the employers should lead evidence first. An application was filed by the employees praying that the workman should be directed to lead his evidence first. The Court rejected the application.
3. It held that in view of the phraseology by the State Government in the reference made to it, the legality or the justifiability of the termination of services of the workman had to be established by the employer and, therefore the burden of proof lay on the employers. The employer felt aggrieved by this order. Hence this petition.
4. Section 5C (1) of the Act provides that subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, a Labour Court shall follow such procedure as it may think fit. It is therefore, clear that the discretion of the Court is not absolute. It is circumscribed by Rules, if any. We have, therefore, to look to the U.P Industrial Disputes Rules of 1957. Rule 12 provided that where the State Government refers an industrial dispute for adjudication to a Labour Court within two weeks of the date of receipt of the order of reference, the workmen and the employers involved in the dispute shall file before the Labour Court a statement of the demands relating to the issues as are included in the order of reference.
5. Sub-rule (8) provides that the written statement filed by the Union or the workman shall state the grounds upon which the claim of the concerned workmen is used and the written statement shall be accompanied by an affidavit in which the statement contained in the written statement should be sworn to. Sub-rule (9) states that if the statement accompanied by the affidavit of the Union or the workman is not repudiated by the employer, the Labour Court shall peruse the contents of the affidavit to be true and make an award accepting the case stated in the written statement.
6. From a combined reading of Section 5-C (1) and the aforementioned sub-rules of Rule 12 it is apparent that it is imperative upon a workman to file an affidavit in support of his written statement. This affidavit constitutes the preliminary evidence. If the employer does not care to controvert the averments made in the affidavit nothing further need be proved or done by the workman. The Labour Court is duty bound to accept the averments contained in the affidavit and give its decision or award accepting the averments made in the affidavit as correct. These provisions indicate that the burden of proving the case referred to the Labour Court for adjudication by the State Government lies on the workman. The distinction between a burden of proof and the onus of proof is well-known. It is trite that the burden of proof never shifts. It is the onus which keeps on shifting from stage to stage. The Labour Court patently erred in holding that keeping in view the terms of the reference made by the State Government the burden of proof lay upon the employers.
7. The matter can be looked at from another angle, which party will fail if the evidence is not led before the Labour Court in proceedings in a reference made to it for adjudication by the State Government ? The obvious answer is that the workman will fail. Here the reference was made by the State Government at the instance of the workmen and for the benefit of the workman. In the absence of any evidence led by or on behalf of the workman the reference is bound to be answered by the Court against the workmen. In such a situation it is not necessary for the employers to lead any evidence at all. This matter was dealt with by the Supreme Court in Shankar Chaudhary v. Britannia Biscuits Co. Ltd.(1) In paragraph 30th Court held that the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal have all the trappings of a Court. In paragraph 31 it held that any party appearing before a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal ‘Must’ make a claim or demur the claim of the other side and when there is a burden upon it to prove or establish the fact so as to invite a decision in its favour, it has to lead evidence. The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation. The test would be, who would fail if no evidence is led. It must seek an opportunity to lead evidence. Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case V.K Raj Industries v. Labour Court.(2)
8. As a result of the foregoing decision it is apprent that the impugned order of the Labour Court cannot be allowed to stand.
9. The writ petition succeeds. It is allowed and the impugned order dated 11th May, 1983 passed by the Labour Court is quashed. It is directed to proceed with the hearing of the dispute referred to it in the light of the observations made above.
10. This order will govern Writ Petitions No. 6742, 6743, 6751 and 9048 of 1983. In these cases similar orders were passed by the Labour Court. The orders dated 18th February, 1983, 3rd May, 1983, 11th May, 1983 and 5th July, 1983 passed in Writ Petition No. 6742, 6742, 6751 and 9048 a of 1983 respectively by the Labour Courts concerned are quashed. These Labour Courts are also directed to resume the hearing of the industrial disputes referred to them for Adjudication in the light of the observations made above. There shall be no order as to costs in any of these writ petitions.
Alert