WP/2882/1999 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2882 OF 1999 Dashrath Waman Nikalje & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Shri Devichand Pragaji Oswal & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.A.V. Joshi for Petitioners Mr.K.S. Bapat for Respondent No.1 Respondent Nos.2 &3 – formal parties CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 8, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The petition has been preferred to challenge the order of the Industrial Court dated 6.5.1998 in Revision Application (ULP) No.112 of 1996. The Industrial Court in the order passed on the Revision application has reversed the findings of the Labour Court. The Labour Court had allowed the complaint filed by the respondents by directing the petitioner herein to pay the workmen at serial No.1 to 5, 6 and 7 of the complaint Rs.15,000/- each. The complainants who were awarded the aforesaid amount by the Labour Court have filed the present petition. However, the petition stands dismissed in respect of the petitioner Nos.2 to 7 for non-prosecution as a consequence of the order passed by this Court on 6.12.2006. Therefore the petition is confined only to the case of petitioner No.1 who will now be referred to as the petitioner. WP/2882/1999 : 2 : 2. The petitioner was employed with the respondent as a Loader to load scrap into trucks. According to the petitioner, when he went to report for duty on 6.4.1990 he was not allowed to perform his duties. He and six other workmen were orally informed that their services had been terminated. Aggrieved by the decision of the employer, the respondent herein, to terminate their services, the workmen filed complaint (ULP) No.75 of 1990. The complaint was filed under Items 1(a), (b), (d), (e), (f) & (g) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. It was contended that the employer had illegally terminated their services without giving any reasons. No compensation was tendered to the workmen nor was any notice issued to them prior to the termination of their services. 3. The employer filed its written statement contending that the workmen had refused to load a truck and had insulted a representative of the respondent. It was further pleaded that the truck was then loaded with the help of three other persons. The workmen did not return to the establishment. The employer conceded that no enquiry was held against the workmen. However, it was pleaded that a letter of termination of services was issued to the workmen which they refused to accept. 4. The workmen did not bother to step into the witness box in order to establish their case that their employer had committed an unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV. The employer on the other hand, examined his witness and described the misconduct committed by the workmen. 5. The Labour Court on a consideration of the pleadings and evidence before it held that each of the workmen should be paid Rs.15,000/- by the employer. It was WP/2882/1999 : 3 : found that the workmen had established that the employer had committed unfair labour practices under Items 1(b), (f) & (g). 6. Aggrieved by the order, the employer filed revision application No.112 of 1996. The Industrial Court by the impugned order has held that since the workmen had not established their case by stepping into the witness box the Labour Court ought not to have granted any relief to them. The Industrial Court observed that the burden was on the workmen to prove that they had completed several years of continuous service with the employer although that fact was pleaded in the complaint. The Industrial Court then observed that the employer had established through its witness that the workmen had refused to perform their duty as instructed by the employer. Instead the employer was abused by them. The Industrial Court also accepted the fact that the employer had established that because of the refusal to perform their duty, he had to ensure that the work was completed through other workmen. The Industrial Court has also observed that the cross-examination indicates that the workmen did not seriously question the allegation of misconduct. Since the workmen had not deposed before the Court the Industrial Court has held that the findings of the Labour Court were required to be set aside. 7. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that even though the petitioner had not stepped into the witness box, the Labour Court had drawn the proper inferences based on the evidence on record. He points out that admittedly the services of the petitioners had been terminated without holding an enquiry and without issuing any notice to him. According to the learned advocate, therefore, the termination from service is bad in law. The learned advocate has relied on the WP/2882/1999 : 4 : judgment of a learned Single Judge of this court in the case of The Ichalkaranji Co- operative Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Deccan Co-operative Soot Girani Kamgar Sangh & Ors., 1990 I CLR 220 in support of his submission that it is not necessary in each case for the workman or the complainant to lead evidence to prove his case. The learned advocate has submitted that based on the evidence on record, the Court can always draw proper and legal inferences. He therefore submits that the Industrial Court ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the Labour Court when legal and proper inferences had been drawn by it. The learned advocate also argued that no real prejudice would be caused to the employer if each workman was granted Rs.15,000/- as directed by the Labour Court. 8. Mr.Bapat, appearing for the Respondent, has submitted that the Industrial Court has considered the fact that the workmen had not led any evidence to sustain the allegations made by them in their complaint against the employer. According to the learned advocate, the employer had sufficiently proved the misconduct before the Labour Court. He submits that the Labour Court could not have after concluding that the workmen were not serious about the proceedings before the court could not have granted reliefs that they claimed. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. In my opinion, the Labour Court has completely erred in granting relief to the workmen especially when they have not stepped into the witness box. Not a single workman out of the seven complainants thought it fit to examine himself and lead evidence before the Court to establish the fact that they had not committed the acts of misconduct. It is now well settled that mere pleadings cannot take the place of WP/2882/1999 : 5 : evidence. Although strict rules of evidence are not applicable in case of labour matters, the bare necessities must be followed. The workman would have to step into the witness box to prove the allegations levelled against the employer in his complaint. This may not be necessary if the case is based only on admitted documents as in the case of The Ichalkaranji Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. (supra). In that case a statement was prepared by the workmen on the basis of the record produced by the employer. That statement was relied upon by the workmen to establish that they had completed 240 days of service. The learned Judge in these circumstances held that since the statement was prepared from the documents of the employer himself there was no need for the workmen to prove that they had completed 240 days in service by stepping into the witness box. This judgment has no application to the facts in the present case. The workmen had contended in their complaint that they had not committed any act of misconduct and that their services have been terminated without notice and without any reason. These facts would have to be established through evidence alone and not mere pleadings. In my opinion, the Industrial Court has correctly concluded that the Labour Court had erred in granting relief to the workmen. Moreover, the employer had established the misconduct alleged against the workmen in Court and there was no evidence led by the workmen, in rebuttal. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the Industrial Court's order need not be disturbed. 10. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.