The Gauhati High Court has ruled that the employee claiming ‘workman’ status under the Industrial Disputes Act must bear the burden of proof, not the management of the organization, in a recent case involving the Industrial Cooperative Bank Ltd and others against the State of Assam and others.
Justice Suman Shyam set aside a ₹36 lakh award granted by the labor court in favor of an employee against the bank.
The court emphasized “Once an objection as to the maintainability of the reference was raised by the management by taking the plea that the employee was not a workman, regardless of whether any written statement is filed on not, it was incumbent upon the learned Labour Court to record a finding on the above aspect of the matter based on the materials produced by the employee. The burden to prove that the employee is a workman for the purpose of section 2 (s) would be upon the employee and not the Management.”
The bench also highlighted the labor court’s failure to examine whether the applicant, who held a management-level position, qualified as a “workman” as defined in the Act.
Consequently, the Gauhati High Court ordered the matter to be sent back to the labor court for a fresh decision, preferably to be reached within six months.
The case involved a petition filed by the Industrial Cooperative Bank Limited, challenging an ex-parte order issued by the labor court that had set aside the bank’s decision to terminate an employee accused of financial irregularities.
The labor court had ordered the reinstatement of the employee, who had previously held an administrative and human resources position. Additionally, the order mandated the payment of back wages and service benefits in arrears to the employee.
The bank had not appeared before the labor court after its objection to the proceedings’ maintainability had been dismissed. Moreover, the bank’s Managing Director at the time was entangled in criminal proceedings.
The High Court acknowledged the well-established principle that jurisdictional issues are fundamental to legal matters and can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
The judge also highlighted that the labor court had failed to provide adequate reasoning as to why the employee’s dismissal from service did not comply with the law, and that its approach had been superficial.
Furthermore, the judge emphasized that the labor court must assess whether the domestic inquiry conducted against the employee was fair and proper.
“If however, the Labour court does not find any infirmity in the proceedings of the domestic enquiry, then the order of penalty can only be examined on the touch stone of proportionality of the punishment.”
As a result, the bank’s appeal was successful, and the previously ordered compensation payment by the labor court was overturned.
