Introduction
The Delhi High Court dismissed three writ petitions challenging the Labour Court’s awards, which had ruled against the petitioners in their claims of wrongful termination. The court found that the employees failed to provide sufficient evidence proving they had worked for 240 days in the year preceding their alleged termination—a statutory requirement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As a result, their claims of illegal termination were unsustainable.
The Labour Court had examined documentary evidence, witness testimonies, and legal precedents before concluding that the petitioners had not met the 240-day requirement. The High Court upheld these findings and dismissed the petitions.
Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court ruled that:
- The petitioners failed to establish that they had worked for at least 240 days in the preceding 12 months, making their claim of illegal termination legally untenable.
- The employer’s records, including appointment letters and wage registers, contradicted the petitioners’ claims of long-term employment.
- The Labour Court’s decision was based on proper legal analysis and did not warrant interference.
- The allegations that the employer forced the petitioners to sign blank papers lacked credibility, as they were not raised in their initial complaint.
Thus, the court upheld the Labour Court’s findings and dismissed the petitions.
Facts of the Case
- Employment Background:
- The petitioners claimed to have been employed as karigars and helpers for several years with the respondent company.
- They alleged they had worked continuously for more than a decade without being provided with proper employment benefits.
- Allegations of Wrongful Termination:
- The petitioners argued that they were denied basic employment rights, such as appointment letters, salary slips, and leave benefits.
- They claimed that the employer forced them to sign blank papers and later misused these documents.
- They contended that when they demanded their legal entitlements, they were terminated on April 30, 2017, without receiving their wages for March and April 2017.
- Labour Court Proceedings:
- The Government of NCT of Delhi referred their cases to the Labour Court to determine:
- Whether the termination of their services was illegal.
- Whether they had worked for 240 days in the 12 months preceding their alleged termination.
- The Labour Court ruled against the petitioners, holding that they failed to prove the statutory requirement of 240 days of service.
- The petitioners challenged this decision in the Delhi High Court.
- The Government of NCT of Delhi referred their cases to the Labour Court to determine:
- Employer’s (Respondent’s) Stand:
- The employer denied the allegations, arguing that the petitioners:
- Had only joined in November 2016, not several years earlier.
- Had voluntarily left their jobs on May 1, 2017 and were not dismissed.
- Had not worked for 240 days in the preceding year, making their claims invalid under the Industrial Disputes Act.
- The employer produced appointment letters, attendance records, and wage slips to support its claims.
- The employer denied the allegations, arguing that the petitioners:
Key Issues Considered by the Court
- Did the petitioners work for 240 days in the 12 months preceding their alleged termination?
- Was the termination illegal or did the employees voluntarily resign?
Petitioners’ Arguments Before the High Court
- The Labour Court’s findings were incorrect, as their termination was illegal and unjust.
- The Labour Union did not properly pursue the case, which led to an unfavorable outcome.
- The employer forced them to sign blank papers, which were later used against them.
- They had worked for several years, contrary to the employer’s claim.
Respondent’s Arguments Before the High Court
- The petitioners voluntarily left their jobs on May 1, 2017, and were not dismissed.
- They had not worked for 240 days in the previous year, making their claim legally untenable.
- The company produced appointment letters and wage records proving that the petitioners were hired in November 2016 and left in April 2017.
- The allegation that the employer forced them to sign blank papers was not raised in their initial complaints, proving that it was an afterthought.
Analysis of the Law
The case primarily revolved around Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which states:
- To claim protection against illegal termination, a workman must prove that they worked for at least 240 days in the preceding 12 months.
- The burden of proof lies on the employee, meaning they must provide documents such as attendance records, wage slips, or employer-issued letters to support their claim.
In this case:
- The petitioners failed to produce any substantial evidence apart from oral testimony.
- The employer produced appointment letters and wage records, which contradicted the petitioners’ claims.
- As per established legal principles, oral testimony alone is not sufficient—documentary proof is required.
Precedent Analysis
The Labour Court relied on a Supreme Court ruling, which held that:
- The burden of proving 240 days of service rests on the employee.
- If an employee fails to provide documentary proof, their claim is not legally sustainable.
- Employment records maintained by the employer are presumed correct unless successfully challenged.
Since the petitioners could not provide evidence of working for 240 days, their case was dismissed based on legal precedent.
Court’s Reasoning
- Failure to Prove Extended Employment:
- The petitioners admitted during cross-examination that they had no documents proving they worked for years.
- They acknowledged their signatures on appointment letters dating back to November 2016, contradicting their claims.
- No Evidence of 240 Days of Service:
- The employer’s records showed that the petitioners only worked from November 2016 to April 2017, making them ineligible for protection under retrenchment laws.
- Allegation of Forced Signatures Was an Afterthought:
- The petitioners never raised the issue of forced signatures in their initial complaint, making it less credible.
- Employer’s Evidence Was Stronger:
- The employer produced appointment letters, wage records, and attendance registers, which were consistent and remained unshaken during cross-examination.
- The Labour Court rightly relied on these records.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court ruled that:
- The petitioners failed to prove they had completed 240 days of service.
- Their claim of long-term employment was contradicted by their own admissions and employer records.
- The allegations of forced signatures on blank papers lacked credibility.
Thus, the petitions were dismissed, and the Labour Court’s decision was upheld.
Implications of the Judgment
- Employees must maintain records: Workers must provide documentary evidence to prove they meet the 240-day requirement.
- Employers should maintain proper records: Employers who keep proper employment records will have stronger defenses against wrongful termination claims.
- 240-day requirement is a strict condition: Employees who fail to meet this threshold cannot claim protection under labour laws.
- Frivolous claims will not be entertained: Courts will not accept unsubstantiated allegations without strong evidence.