Summary
The initial burden of proving 240 days’ continuous work rested on the temporary workmen and could not simply be placed on the employer. The Court nevertheless declined further examination of that issue and settled monetary relief in the peculiar circumstances, most workmen having reached retirement age. Existing payments were treated as full satisfaction of back wages, compensation in lieu of reinstatement and other claims, with a specific payment to one deceased workman’s heirs.
Issues
- Who initially bore the burden of proving the qualifying continuous service.
- How relief should be settled after the long interval and retirement of most workmen.
Held
- The workmen first had to adduce evidence of the required continuous service before the evidentiary burden shifted. The High Court erred in requiring the Board to disprove 240 days without that foundation, but the Supreme Court did not pursue the issue further. (¶ 9)
- Given the elapsed time and retirement position, amounts already paid, including Section 17B payments and the Court-directed ₹2 lakh, were treated as full settlement of monetary and reinstatement-related claims. (¶ 10–11)
- The settlement was expressly confined to the peculiar circumstances and was not to be quoted as a precedent. (¶ 12)
Result
Appeals disposed of. Amounts already paid to each workman treated as full satisfaction of all claims, including 50% back wages and compensation instead of reinstatement. Board to pay ₹2 lakh to M. Muthuswamy Nadar’s legal representatives. Remaining Labour Court/High Court deposits with accrued interest refunded to Board. Order expressly non-precedential.