Relevant Evidence Not Considered, Gauhati High Court Asks Labour Court To Decide Assam Power Corp Workers' Termination Issue Afresh

The Gauhati High Court has recently set aside the judgment of a single bench which affirmed an award of the Labour Court rejecting claims of certain workmen engaged by Assam Power Development Corporation Limited regarding their unlawful termination.

A division bench of Chief Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaundon set aside the order on the ground that photocopies of the relevant materials and documents produced by the workmen were omitted from consideration both by Single Judge and the Labour Court. It observed:

“Law is well settled that proceedings before a Labour Court are not governed by strict rules of Evidence. Hence, producing the original documents in support of the labour claims, was not required by any stretch of imagination. The Management was also allowed to produce the photostat copies of certain labour procurement orders given to the contractors. As the rules of appreciation are to be applied equally to both the sides, these documents, being photostat copies, could not have been relied upon.”

The appellant-workmen claimed to be Muster Roll workers engaged by the Assam Power Development Corporation Limited (respondent Corporation). Appellants submitted that they had been unlawfully terminated, and approached the Labour Court against their termination.

It was submitted that the Labour Court rejected the claim of the appellants regarding wrongful termination vide award dated June 03, 2014.

The appellants subsequently challenged the order of the Labour Court before the High Court through a writ petition which was rejected by a single bench in 2018 with the observations that the workmen did not provide any documentation regarding their employment.

The single bench had observed that "it is failed to be understood as to what prevented the workmen to produce at least one such appointment letters. Issue of I.D. Cards may be for many other reason and cannot be a conclusive evidence of the petitioners being under direct employment of the management. No documents in original were produced before the Labour Court.”

Hence, the appellants preferred the present intra-court appeal assailing the judgment of the single-judge bench as well as the award of the Labour Court.

The Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants were appointed as workmen in the Bongaigaon Thermal Power Station (BTPS) at Salakati between the years 1981 and 1986 and they continued to serve the BTPS till the termination of their services in the year 2002 on the purported ground that the BTPS had stopped generating power.

It was submitted that the appellants were directly engaged by BTPS Management by assigning them special duties allotted at different times and they used to sign the attendance register along with the regular employees and were also given the benefits of Provident Fund (PF), Gratuity and accommodation by the BTPS Authority.

It was the contention of the appellants that after their initial appointment under the BTPS, they were informed that their salaries, after statutory deductions, would be paid through agents and they were also issued identity cards. The appellants alleged that through this move, their status had been unilaterally and mala fide changed as contractual labourers.

It was contended that the Labour Court as well as the Single Judge erred in shifting the burden of producing documents of engagement upon the appellants being the labourers. It was argued that a different yardstick was applied while appreciating the case of the BTPS.

It was submitted that the fact that the employer establishment admitted that the labourers were being paid gratuity and their PF was also being deducted from their salary payments, made it clear that they were directly engaged by the Company.

It was further argued that in the statements of workmen witnesses and the certificates issued by the Executive Engineer, Mill & Milling Circuit Maint, it had been certified that these labourers were working as skilled labourers on muster roll since the dates mentioned in the certificates.

It was the contention of the appellants that the genuineness of these certificates annexed in the evidence of the workmen witnesses was not disputed by the employer either in the written statement or in the evidence of its witnesses.

On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that since the reference was made at the instance of the appellants, the burden of proof was upon the appellants to establish their case by leading convincing oral and documentary evidence that they were in direct engagement of the respondent establishment.

It was further submitted that since the appellants were never employees of the BTPS establishment, there was no requirement to follow the mandates of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for discharging their services. It was argued that there was no employer-employee relationship, and the appellants failed to make a case for interference.

The Court noted that the single judge recorded a contradictory finding in the impugned order, wherein he held that the appellants did not present any document to prove their case as the fact remains that certificates of engagement by the establishment were produced in the evidence of the statements of the witnesses before the Court.

It further observed that the contractors concerned were examined, but were not made to verify and prove the supply orders, whereby the BTPS purportedly directed them to provide labourers.

“Hence, it is clearly a case, wherein relevant material/documents were omitted from consideration both by the learned Single Judge as well as the learned Labour Court. We feel that if the documents presented by the workmen in their evidence had been taken in to account, a different view was possible,” the Court said.

Thus, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded back the matter to the Labour Court, Guwahati to re-hear the arguments of the parties and decide the matter as per law through a reasoned judgment.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 102

Case Title: Sri Khargeswar Narzary & 14 Ors. v. The State of Assam & 2 Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Order