- (1.) V. C. Misra, J. Heard Sri V. R. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri U. C. Keshrwani, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 2 to 33. The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is a partnership firm and carries on its business of sale of Zarda, Soaps and Fertilizers etc. In paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it has been stated that out of respondents No. 2 to 33 only 7 (seven) respondents are employee of the petitioner. Since the employees of the petitioner were not paid their wages, as fixed under the Government Notification issued dated 31-3-1978 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition, whereby the minimum rate of wages were to be paid as per chart enclosed therein, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No 3 to the writ petition, the dispute was placed before the Labour Court in Misc. Case No. 21 of 1983, Tusli Ram and others v. M/s Keserwani and Company, Shason, Allahabad. The statements, written statements, objections rejoinder affidavit etc. were filed and exchanged between the parties. The petitioner employer in its written statement pleaded that the said Government order did not apply to it and more so many of the applicants were not the employees of the petitioner. The parties before the Labour Court submitted that they did not want to, adduce any oral evidence and the case be decided finally on the basis of the record. On 30-10-1984 the arguments of both the parties were heard on the preliminary objection On 23-11-1984 the Labour Court passed an order behind the back of the petitioner directing him to produce the attendance register for the purpose of verification of the number of the employees and the workmen, who were party to the proceedings. No documentry evidence was produced by the workmen to show that the they were the employee of the petitioner except the statement, the petitioner has also filed a copy of the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Allahabad in a pending case filed by respondent No. 2 to 33 under the Payment of Wages Act for the period from June, 1982 to June 1983. In paragraph 21 of the writ petition. It has been submitted that a report of the Labour Court Inspector, Phoolpur, Allahabad dated 2-6-1982 was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 to 33 themselves before the Labour Court, which disclosed that only 7 persons (respondents No. 2, 5, 20, 26, 28, 30 and 31) (seven) disclosed in the said paragraph were only the employees of the petitioner, and the remaining other persons were shown as employee of the other concern, a true copy of the said report has been filed as Annexure No. 5 A to the writ petition.
(2.) THE copy of the award in Adjudication Case No. 15/83 passed on 15th September, 1984 in respect with the employees and workmen mentioned therein w. e. f. 29-7-1982 wherein the names of the many of the respondents to the present writ petition have been shown as employees-workmen of M/s Kesarwani Zarda Bhandar (different establishment) at Sl. No. 4, 8, 10 to 15, 17, 20, 27, 29, 31 and 32, had claimed regularization with the said establishment w. e. f. 29-7-1982 having continuously worked for the period of 5 years till 29-7-1982. In paragraph 6 of the said award a reference is made about report dated 6-2-1982 of the labour Inspector on the basis of which the Labour Court gave no benefit to the workmen. In paragraph 7 of the writ petition, it was held that barring workmen at Sl. No. 41 the remaining workmen were found to be temporary causal and many of them were engage for fixed tenure after which they had been removed. THE said workmen were not granted the relief of regularization. THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not employer of the respondent- employees no relief could be granted to them by virtue of impugned order under Section 33 C 2/6 H 2 of the Industrial Dispute Act/u. P. Industrial Dispute Act. The petitioner by this writ petition, has challenged the impugned order dated 15-2-1985 mainly on the grounds that the respondent No. 1 seized the jurisdiction after expiry of 3 months of the filing of the application by respondent No. 2 to 33 and claim was barred by time under Section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, and that respondents had failed to prove that all of them were employees of the petitioner and that Labour Court should not have allowed the claim of the respondents merely because the petitioner could not produce the attendance register, and more, so since the respondents had failed to produced any evidence regarding any deduction having, been made from the wages of the employees of the petitioner in accordance with law. Respondent No. 1 passed the impugned order dated 15-2-1985 upholding the claim of the respondent No. 2 to 33. The petitioner being aggrieved with the said order filed a Review application dated 14-3- 1985 before the Labour Court, which was dismissed on 1-5-1985.
(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in paragraph 4, the averment made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition has been denied and it is stated that all the respondents are employees of the petitioner and were working under the employment of the petitioner. IN response to paragraph 21 of the writ petition, it has been admitted in paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit that in the report of the Labour Court INspector it was found that the workmen concerned are working in different employment. However, it has been submitted that all different establishment shown are part of the Unit of the petitioner company and looking after the work of the petitioner company for the purpose of advancement of production and sale of Zarda which is being produced and sold by the petitioner and the employees are recruited for the petitioner's company. The respondents have been given different jobs, in different units of tine company and all these different units are situated within one and the same compound. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner's company has no unit at all except the company itself, which deals with the articles mentioned in the writ petition, A reference has been made to the report of the Labour Court inspector which shows that the separate establishments having nothing to do with each other nor there is any common management and proprietorship and all of them had separate partnership for doing Independent business and separate management and office and they are assessed separately to income tax and sales tax etc and the workers of one establishment have nothing to do with the other establishment. The averment made in the said counter affidavit have been denied in paragraph 19 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner. During the arguments he has stressed upon the Labour Court inspector report (Annexure No. 5a and also Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition);