Mumbai: A city labour court recently termed as an unfair labour practice under law for oral termination of the service of a salesman by a shop proprietor and ordered that the salesman be paid back-wages.
The salesman Ratnakar Phodkar had stated in his complaint that he had worked with the Sakinaka garment showroom since 2001 where his working hours would be from morning 9 to late in the night till 10.30. On festival days, he had to work till 12 am, all for a monthly salary of Rs 6,000. When he had asked for an overtime pay, his employers had refused. He then approached a workers union, which had sent a letter to the proprietor. Thereafter, the owner had allegedly asked him to resign and when he did not do so, his services were orally terminated.
In a complaint filed in 2011, Phodkar demanded that he be reinstated and also paid back-wages as well as retrenchment compensation. He claimed that he was not issued any show-cause notice nor a chargesheet was made against him and hence his oral termination was illegal and did not follow provisions of the law.
The employer in his defence had told the court through a written statement that Phodkar was not continuously employed with him and had joined only in 2009, after which he had left the service and joined elsewhere. He then returned in 2010 and worked for a few months.
Judge KB Chougule said regarding this in the judgment, “..there is no appointment letter issued by respondents. Unless contrary is shown or brought on record by the respondents the length of service as averred in the complaint cannot be disbelieved. The respondent claims that the complainant was not working for 240 days as a salesman, however there is no evidence to show that for which specific period he was in the employment of the respondents. The burden lies on the respondents to show that the complainant was not regularly employed.”
When an employee completes 240 days of service in a year prior to his termination from service, he becomes eligible for benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act.
However, since the shop had closed in 2013 pending hearing of the complaint, the court said that that the plea for reinstatement would not stand. It calculated Phondkar’s back wages from the date of termination in September 2011 till closure of the shop in 2013 and ordered the employer to pay back wages of Rs. 96,000 to the complainant. It also ordered that he be paid retrenchment compensation of Rs. 36,000 as the shop closed in 2013. The retrenchment compensation was calculated from 2001.
