- Section 101- Manager, R.B.I., Bangalore vs S. Mani & Ors.
- Bench:Justice N. Santosh Hegde, Justice B.P. Singh, Justice S.B. Sinha.
Facts:
- The Respondents worked under the Appellant as intermittent employees (Ticca Mazdoors) from March 14, 1980 to August 8, 1942.
- The Respondentsfurnished school verification certificates, which were found to be forged by the Appellants. However, the Respondents were not held guiltyfor furnishing false certificationsin the criminal case filed by the Appellant.
- Thereafter, the Respondentssubmitted fresh certifications and requested reemployment from the Appellant. On non-acceptance of such request, an industrial dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act was raised against the Appellant.
- The Industrial Tribunal by its award, held that thetermination of the Respondents from service, without complying with the provisions of Section 25F, ID Act, even after completing 240 days of service, is illegaland the Respondents are entitled to be reinstated in the Appellant’s services with full wages.
Issue:
Whether the failure to prove a defence by one party amounts to admission by the other?
Contentions:
- The Respondents did not report for their duty between December, 1982 and March, 1987, which is sufficient proof that had abandoned their services.
- The Tribunal did not consider that the initial burden of proof fell on the Respondents to show that they had completed 240 days of service during a period of 12 monthspreceding the order of termination. Since, they have failed to prove their plea of abandonment of service, there is no question of compliance with Section 25F that arises.
- There is no existence of a settlement arrived at, between the parties.
Contentions of the Respondents:
- The Appellant could not prove that the Respondents had allegedly abandoned their services.
- The order of the Division Bench was a consent order, thus, no appeal lies against it.
- The provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act have to be complied with, even when the workmen are employed as Badli Workers or Ticca Mazdoors as daily wager.
Background:
Aggrieved by the order of the Industrial Tribunal, writ petitions were filed by the Appellant before the Karnataka High Court, which were dismissed.However, the Division Bench allowed the said appeal in part and directed that the back wages be paid to the Respondentsfrom 23rd July, 1993, instead of their respective dates of retrenchment.
Judgment:
Concerning the question of burden of proof, the Court observed that the Respondents furnished only an affidavit and no other evidence was adduced to support their contentionthat they worked for 240 days in the year preceding the termination, as per Section 25 B of the Industrial DisputesAct. Hence, filing of representations or raising demands cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence to prove a case, for any court or tribunal.
While examining decisions of courts on the matter of onus of proof, it was held that the failure to prove a defence does not amount to an admission and nor does it reverse or discharge the burden of proof from one party to the other.
In the instant case, onus of proof shall not lie on the Appellantwithout first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the Respondents had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding their termination.
Hence, the Court rejected the findings of the Industrial Tribunal and set aside its award, observing that Appellant’s failure to prove their plea of abandonment of service by the Respondentscannot be taken to be a circumstance that the Respondents have proved their case.
