- (1.)BY this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the 3rd Labour Court, Nagpur on 27.1.2003 partly allowing the application filed by the respondent on.1 under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and directing the petitioner to pay the amount of R.25900/- to the respondent no.1 towards the salary for the period from 30.7.1995 to 30.6.1998. The respondent no.1 had filed an application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Nagpur. It was the case of the respondent no.1 that he was working as a Pump Operator and Watchman with the petitioner from 7.3.1983 on monthly wages of Rs. 700/-. The respondent no.1 pleaded that the petitioner had not made payment of salary to the respondent no.1 from July 1995 till the date of his termination in the year 1998. The respondent no.1 had therefore, claimed total salary of Rs.33600/- with 18% interest thereon.
(2.)THE petitioner Zilla Parishad, filed the reply and denied the claim of the respondent no.1. It was denied that there was an employer and employee relationship between the parties. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 was never appointed by the petitioner and he never worked with the petitioner at any point of time. According to the petitioner there was no question of paying any amount to the respondent no.1 as there was no relationship between the parties. The respondent no.1 entered into the witness box and tendered evidence. On an appreciation of the evidence tendered by the respondent no.1, the Labour Court, Nagpur by the impugned order dated 27.1.2003 partly allowed the application filed by the respondent no.1 and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.25900/ - to the applicant. The said order is impugned by the instant writ petition.
Shri P.D. Meghe, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court committed a serious error in allowing the application when the relationship between the parties was in dispute. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent no.1 had not produced a single document on record to show that he was an employee of the Zilla Parishad. In such circumstances, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the claim of the respondent no.1 ought to have been dismissed, specially when it was made under the provisions of section 33- C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the evidence of the respondent no.1 clearly showed that he was an employee of the Gram Panchayat and was not an employee of the Zilla Parishad.

Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 supported the order passed by the Labour Court on 27.1.2003 and submitted that the Labour Court had rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record to hold that the amount of Rs.25900/- was payable to the respondent no.1 by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 sought for the dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.)I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the impugned order dated 27.1.2003 along with the pleadings of the parties and the evidence of the respondent no.1. From a perusal of the same, it is clear that the Labour Court committed an error in holding that the petitioner was liable to pay an amount of Rs.25900/- to the respondent no.1 towards salary for the period from 30.7.1995 to 30.6.1998. The Labour Court failed to consider that all the documents produced by the respondent no.1 on record were signed by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and none of the documents were ever signed by the officers of the Zilla Parishad. The communications issued by the respondent no.1 to the Zilla Parishad would not be of any assistance to the case of the respondent no.1 as they were not the communications from the Zilla Parishad showing that the respondent no.1 was their employee. The documents at serial no.18 and 19, the two exercise books, were also signed by the Sarpanch of the village. These documents therefore, did not show that the respondent no.1 was an employee of the Zilla Parishad. There was no seal of the Zilla Parishad on any of the documents on exhibit 21 and 22, and those were applications, written by respondent no.1 to the petitioner. Some document was produced by the respondent no.1 to show that that the scheme of water supply was not transferred to the Gram Panchayat of village Barfa till the year 1998. This document however could not show that the scheme of water supply was with the Zilla Parishad and indeed the respondent no.1 was appointed by the Zilla Parishad as its employee.
It is further necessary to peruse the cross-examination of the respondent no.1 as he had admitted in his cross examination that there was no documentary evidence to show that he was employed by the Zilla Parishad as a Pump Operator. He had also admitted that his services were terminated by the Gram Panchayat and not by the Zilla Parishad. He then admitted that Barfa Gram Panchayat was looking after the work of water supply of village Barfa. He admitted that the Gram Panchayat of village Barfa issued certificates exhibit 22 to 25 on his demand. He admitted that he had not filed any document to show that the Zilla Parishad was making the payment to him. Thus, on an overall reading of the evidence tendered by the respondent no.1 it was clear that the respondent no. 1 had not proved that he was an employee of the Zilla Parishad. The Labour Court unnecessarily drew an adverse inference against the petitioner for not entering the witness box. It was not necessary for the petitioner to enter the witness box in the facts of this case as it was necessary for the respondent no.1 to prove by cogent evidence that he was an employee of the Zilla Parishad. The Labour Court was therefore, not justified in directing the petitioner Zilla Parishad to pay salary of the respondent no.1 for the period from 30.7.1995 to 30.6.1998. Though the Labour Court was not justified in directing the, petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.25900/- to the respondent no.1, it appears that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner had deposited the amount of Rs.25900/- in this court and this court had permitted the respondent no.1 to withdraw that amount. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, it would not be proper to permit the petitioner to recover the said amount form the respondent no.1, as the same is already withdrawn by the respondent no.1 five years earlier.