- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The appellant was employed as a daily-rated workman on 20/5/1972 by the Executive Engineer, Jayakwadi Project, in the State of Maharashtra. On 20/6/1973, he was promoted to the post of Pump Operator. On 1/11/1975, the services of the appellant was transferred to the Lift Irrigation Scheme under the Irrigation Development Corporation of Maharashtra, on deputation. Even though he was sent on deputation without obtaining his consent, his service conditions were not changed. The appellant continued to work as Pump Operator. It is the case of the appellant that on 30/9/1979, the Chairman of the Lift Irrigation Scheme (Respondent 3 orally terminated the services of the appellant. According to the appellant. Respondent 3 had no authority to terminate the services of the appellant, because the appellant was an employee of the State government, his appointment having been made by the Executive Engineer, Jayakwadi Project, Canal Division, District Aurangabad. When wages were not paid, the appellant filed an application under Section 33-C (2 of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the said application, the firm stand of the appellant was that he was the employee of the State government and only the Executive Engineer (Respondent 1 could have terminated the services. As such he was entitled for wages which had not been paid. The Labour court, Aurangabad, by its order dated 28/7/1980 held that Respondent 1, the Executive Engineer, had employed the appellant and had transferred his services to the Corporation. In this background. Respondent 1 could not have avoided the responsibility of the payment of wages to the appellant. The relevant part of the order aforesaid is: "7.The liability to pay the amount is solely of opponent no. 1 who employed the applicant and transferred the service to the opponent No. 2. It is pertinent to note that the service conditions of the applicant remained unchanged although he worked with the opponent No. 2. The pump was owned by opponent no. 1, Its electricity bill was also paid by the opponent no. 1 and the payment of wages to the applicant were also made by the opponent no. 1 through the opponent No. 2. The opponent no. 1 cannot avoid the responsibility simply because the applicant out of ignorance states that the opponent No. 2 was making the payment of wages to the applicant. I therefore hold that the applicant is entitled to claim the amount of benefits from the opponent No. 1. "it is an admitted position that in pursuance of the said direction the Executive Engineer (Respondent 1) paid the amount awarded to the appellant. The award under Section 33-C (2 holding that the appellant continued to be the employee of the State government under the Executive Engineer (Respondent 1 even after his transfer to the Corporation, was not challenged before any higher court and it became final.
(3.) It may be mentioned that in the year 1979 the appellant had also filed a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the PULP Act") making a grievance regarding the unfair trade practice adopted by the respondents to the said application i. e. the Executive Engineer aforesaid, the Managing Director of the Irrigation Development Corporation, Maharashtra and the Chairman, Lift Irrigation Scheme, Patherwala Budruk. That application was disposed of on 21/10/1981 by the authority constituted under the Act, holding that Respondent 3 to that application had adopted an unfair labour practice in terminating the services of the appellant. On that finding the oral termination order dated 30/9/1979 was held to be invalid and a direction was given to Respondent 3 to reinstate the appellant in service within one month from the date of publication of the said order. A direction was also given to reinstate the appellant with continuity of service from 1/10/1979. As there was no specific direction against Respondent 1 i. e. the Executive Engineer, Jayakwadi Project, Canal Division, against whom also the complaint had been made, appellant filed a writ application before the High court, for issuance of a specific direction, against Respondent I, the Executive Engineer. The High court after having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the order passed under Section 33-C (2 of the Act by the Labour court, observed that no charge of unfair labour practice could be levelled against Respondent I, the Executive Engineer, because the services of the appellant had been terminated by the Chairman, Lift Irrigation Scheme (Respondent 3. The writ application of the appellant was dismissed,;