ISPAT GODAWARI Vs. VIRENDRA KUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against order dated 19.04.2007 passed by the State Industrial Court, Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Appeal No.78/CGIR/A-II/2006 whereby, reversing the order passed by the Labour Court, the Industrial Court has passed an order of reinstatement of respondent employee.

(2.) The factual backdrop giving rise to dispute between the parties and the impugned order are that the respondent employee was working in the petitioner's establishment and engaged in industrial activity. During the course of employment, while working in the factory, the employee suffered an accident resulting in loss of three fingers. It is said that later on, he was disengaged from employment. When the employee's prayer for re-engagement in the establishment was allegedly refused on the ground that now he cannot be engaged for the same work and his request for engagement in any other light work was rejected, the respondent employee filed an application under Section 31(3) of the C.G.I.R. Act before the Labour Court praying for reinstatement on the pleadings, inter alia, that he was employed in the establishment by the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner being direct employer is liable to reinstate in service. According to the employee, the provision of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act of 1947') under Chapter VA of the Act of 1947 has been made applicable to scheduled industries under the Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act which obliged the employer to pay retrenchment compensation. As no retrenchment compensation was paid before terminating the employer, the retrenchment was illegal.

(3.) The employer submitted his written statement to the claim of the employee by submitting that the employee was engaged by the contractor and he was not the employee of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the employee was engaged by the contractor, who was duly licensed under Section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short 'the Act of 1970'). The petitioner of the purpose of the said Act was only a principal employer and therefore, no relief of reinstatement could be sought against the petitioner. The parties led their respective oral and documentary evidence. The claim of the employee, however, did not find favour before the Labour Court and the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent employee preferring appeal before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court allowed the appeal reversing order of the Labour Court by recorded a finding that the respondent was, in fact, an employee of the petitioner and he being disabled person, entitled to reinstatement in employment. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition.