V.C.Misra, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner M/s Triveni Sheet Glass Works Limited seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated 25.7.2000 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) given by the labour Court, Allahabad in Adjudication Case No. 49 of 1990 published on 27.11.2000.
(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Allahabad and it runs a factory in which glass is manufactured. The main ingredient for running the glass factory is the furnace oil, which is used in the furnace for melting the glass, which is supplied by the Indian Oil Corporation situated at Subedar Ganj, Allahabad from where it is transported to the factory premises of the petitioner by tankers. One Sri Amar Nath Singh respondent No. 3-workman was assigned the job of taking delivery of the furnace oil on behalf of the company from the Indian Oil Corporation and deliver the same at the factory premises for which authorization letters were issued in his favour by and on behalf of the company. Since the services of the workman had been terminated by the petitioner-company without complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 therefore, the respondent No. 3-workman raised an industrial dispute. The following question was referred to the labour Court by the U.P. State Government : Whether the termination of the services of the workman Sri Amar Nath Singh son of Sri Ram Adhar Singh, Post-Supervisor by its employer with effect from 5.2.1987 was proper and legal? If not, then to what benefits and reliefs, the concerned workman is entitled to receive and with what other/further details?
(3.) Before the labour Court the petitioner-company denied the allegations of the workman and stated that Amar Nath Singh was not an employee of the petitioner-company but of the contractor-Sri Dilip Chandra who was the proprietor of the firm M/s Pace Development which was given the contract for bringing the furnace oil from Indian Oil Corporation to the factory. However, subsequently it was also stated by the company that the said workman Amar Nath Singh was the employee of another contractor Wayfare Traders. The written statements were filed and the evidence documentary as well as oral was led by both the parties before the labour Court which after dealing each and every aspect in detail, found that there was nothing on record to show that the company had entered into any contract with any firm neither any licence as required in terms of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 for taking work from a workman through any contractor had been produced. The labour Court also found on the basis of extensive evidence on record admitted by the petitioner-company referred to in paras-13, 14 and 15 of its award that the company had been taking work from Amar Nath Singh-respondent No. 3 for its own purpose and for bringing furnace oil through authorization letters regularly issued by the company wherein admittedly the name of the contractor was not mentioned. The workman had succeeded in proving his case whereas the employer-company had failed to prove its case. The labour Court ultimately held that the workman was continuously working for the employer-company and thus, there existed a complete relationship of master and servant, and while illegally removing him from services with effect from 5.2.1987, the provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), had been flouted and the workman was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages along with other consequential benefits.;