- (1.) HEARD Sri Siddharth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Nigam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 24.2.1998 published on 31.7.1998.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner workman is that he was employed on the post of Supervisor in the factory of respondent no. 2 from March, 1990 and on 1.2.1993 his services were terminated by the respondent no.2. The petitioner raised industrial dispute after failure of the reconciliation proceedings, the State Government made a reference under Section 4-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The disputed reference for adjudication is as follows:- "Whether the removal of their workman Subodh Kumar son of Ilam Singh from the Service by the employers on 01.02,1993 is unjust and illegal? If yes, then to what relief/benefits is the concerned workman entitled to and with details?" The Adjudication case No. 172 of 94 was registered. The workman filed his written statement through Union. It was stated therein that he was employed in the establishment of respondent no. 2 as Bottle Washing Supervisor for more than two and half years and rendered continuous service but his services were terminated with effect from 01.02.1993 orally without any order. The act of respondent no. 2 in terminating the services of the petitioner comes within the meaning of retrenchment and the benefit of Section 6-N of the Act should be given to him. The termination is void and illegal and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with all back wages and other consequential benefits. The employer respondent no. 2 in their written statement tried to set up a case that the petitioner was not employed by them and he is not covered under the definition of workman under Section 2(Z) of the Act. It was further stated therein that the respondent establishment is registered under the Factories Act and other relevant Acts which are applicable on the workman factory. The factory is also registered under Section 7(2) of the Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the registration certificate was issued under the said Act. The contractors are employed from time to time in the factory and the workman was employed through the contractor. There was no relationship of employer and employee with the workers employed through contractor. The petitioner being one of them, there was no question of termination of his services. The additional issue was framed after exchange of affidavits between the parties by the Labour Court which is as follows:- "Whether there was relationship of employer and Servant between the concerned workman (Subodh Kumar) and the employer? If no, then its effects ?"
(3.) IN support of his case, the workman filed 15 exhibits (Ex.-W-1 to Ex.- W-15). The copies of these documents have been annexed as annexure 1 to the writ petition. The respondent employer filed 17 documents namely, registration certificate issued under the Contract Labour Act, attendance register etc. Statement of the workman was recorded alongwith two other employees. By the award dated 24.2.1998, the reference was decided against the petitioner and it was held that there was no employee-employer relationship between the workman and the respondent no.2. The petitioner was not workman of the respondent establishment and was employed through contractor as such industrial dispute raised by him cannot be adverted to. Sri Siddharth, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that award passed by the labour court is illegal and is based on misreading of evidences of the record. The labour court has misconstrued the documents namely exhibits W-5 and Ex. W-7. The witness of the employer has failed to corroborate the documents Ex. W-5 to W-7 in his statement recorded before the labour court. He expressed his ignorance about the name of the contractor who was given contract of washing bottles during the period in which the petitioner was employed. Despite the said fact, the labour court on the basis of the statement of witness of employer has recorded wrong finding that the petitioner was not direct employee of the respondent employer.;