Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
The Patna High Court, in this case, dealt with the claims of two individuals who sought regularization of their employment in a college under Jai Prakash University, Chapra. The appellants, a man and his wife, stated that they had been appointed as daily wagers on a verbal order of the college Principal in 2007. They claimed to have worked continuously for more than 240 days in a year and therefore sought permanent employment status.
Initially, they were paid ₹200 per month, later increased to ₹300. However, from April 2009, their wages were stopped, and they were removed from service. They approached the Deputy Labour Commissioner, and the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Chapra under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The core question was: Was the denial of regularization justified, and if not, what relief were they entitled to?
The Labour Court carefully examined the case. Thirteen witnesses were produced on behalf of the petitioners, but no documentary evidence was provided to prove their employment, attendance, or payment records. Importantly, the petitioners themselves admitted that they never marked attendance in the college. The Court noted that proof of continuous service of at least 240 days in a year was essential to support their claim. Since no reliable documents were produced, the Labour Court concluded that the petitioners had failed to establish their case.
The matter went up to a Single Judge of the Patna High Court, who upheld the Labour Court’s award, dismissing the writ petition. The petitioners then filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before a Division Bench. The High Court, comprising the Hon’ble Chief Justice and another Judge, reiterated that both the Labour Court and the Single Judge had correctly applied the law. Without documentary evidence of service, the claim could not be entertained. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
In essence, the Court held that mere oral assertions and witness statements are insufficient to secure regularization. Proof in the form of records like appointment letters, attendance registers, wage slips, or other official documentation is critical.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
- For workers: This ruling highlights the importance of maintaining and producing records when claiming regularization. Daily wagers cannot rely solely on oral claims; documentary evidence is vital.
- For employers and institutions: The judgment safeguards against unverified claims of employment. It reinforces that institutions cannot be forced to regularize services without proof of actual work.
- For the legal system: It underscores the principle that employment rights, especially regularization, must be established through credible evidence rather than assumptions.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Issue 1: Were the appellants entitled to regularization of their services as daily wagers?
Decision: No. The Labour Court found that the appellants failed to produce evidence of working 240 days in a year. - Issue 2: Was the Labour Court’s award flawed in law or jurisdiction?
Decision: No. The Single Judge upheld the award, finding no error. - Issue 3: Should the Division Bench interfere with the Single Judge’s order?
Decision: No. The Division Bench found no infirmity and dismissed the appeal.
Case Title
Suresh Ram & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Others
Case Number
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1465 of 2018
(in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18545 of 2016)
Citation(s)
2021(1) PLJR 639
Coram and Names of Judges
- Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sanjay Karol
- Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Kumar
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- Mr. Mohammed Abu Haidar — for the appellants
- Mr. Chitranjan Sinha (Paag-2) — for the respondents
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyMxNDY1IzIwMTgjMSNO-qoPQIgdqli0=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
