- (1.) Heard Sri Vivek Ratan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gautam Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 and learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) The present writ petition arises out of an award dated 20.6.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (U.P.), Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 28 of 2007. An industrial dispute was raised by respondent no. 3-workman on the ground that his services have been illegally terminated by the petitioner employer and he was an employee of IFFCO the petitioner and not of contractor M/s H.S. Construction, respondent no. 4. The State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication as under:- "whether the termination of services of workman, Sri Manoj Kumar Kumar Gupta, 'Data Entry Operator' with effect from 3.6.1999, by the employer is justified and/or legal? If not, then to what relief and compensation, the workman is entitled and its effect?"
(3.) In reference, the name of the petitioner M/S Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd., Phulpur, Allahabad and the contractor M/s H.S. Construction, Pure Maharat, Phulpur, Allahabad have been mentioned as employers. The dispute raised by the workman before the Conciliation Officer was that the workman was appointed on 15.6.1993 on the post of casual typist and later on has been designated as Data Entry Operator. He was wrongly shown as workman engaged through contractor. He was discharging duties which were permanent in nature and his services have wrongly been terminated with effect from 3.6.1999. The petitioner IFFCO contested the claim and denied the master servant relationship between IFFCO and the workman. The stand was that the workman was engaged by M/s H.S. Construction Company, a contractor of IFFCO licensed under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act,1970 (In short "1970 Act"). As the workman was not an employee of IFFCO and hence no industrial disputes existed between them. In the written statement, the workman took the plea that he was working under direct control and supervision of IFFCO and his job was of permanent nature. He has completed 240 days in each calender year. His work was never supervised by the contractor. The contractor was only an agent of IFFCO and was a camouflage. There was no control over working of the employee by the contractor, only salary was being paid through contractor whereas the attendance of the workman was noted by the authorities of IFFCO. However, no appointment letter was given to the workman and by an oral termination his services have been dispensed with. The workman is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages from the date of termination. On 24.9.2002, an award was passed by the Labour Court wherein it was held that the workman was not an employee of IFFCO but was an employee of the contractor M/s H.S. Construction and he was not entitled to any relief.;