ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. - (1.) Petitioner is a government company registered under the provisions of section 617 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of handicrafts and handlooms and also imports bullion. It is asserted that Central Government owns 100% shares and otherwise exercises deep and pervasive control over its affairs, and consequently, it qualifies to be a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Challenge is laid in this petition to an award passed by Labour Court, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar in Adjudication Case No.2488 of 2008, dated 16.8.2010, whereby reference has been answered in favour of the respondent workmen.
(2.) Briefly stated facts are that a reference was made to Labour Court, constituted under U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by the State Government under section 4-K, on 25.10.2007, on the question as to whether action of employer in not engaging 31 workmen as per schedule from 1.1.1991 is justified or not and to what relief are they entitled to?. The schedule contains names of 31 workmen, who are stated to be drawing wages of Rs.1,500/- per month and are stated to be working from 1977 to 1990. A written statement was filed by workmen stating that an industrial dispute has arisen on account of the fact that workmen, who have been permanently working since long, raised demand of regularization whereafter employer started describing such workmen to be employees of respondent no.9 and stopped taking work from them from 1.1.1991, without passing any order. Prayer consequently was made to declare 31 workmen to be employees of petitioner and to regularize them, apart from declaring petitioner's action of not taking work from them w.e.f. 1.1.1991 as illegal and unjustified and to reinstate them alongwith back wages. Other service benefits were also claimed. A written statement was filed by the petitioner denying the averments made by the workmen. It was stated that none of the 31 workmen were employed by petitioner and in fact they were employees of respondent no.9. Existence of employee-employer relationship has been denied. It was also stated that being contractor's workmen they do not become employees of petitioner and no industrial dispute exists. Various other submissions were also made. An affidavit was also filed by the petitioner stating that petitioner is an establishment of Government of India. Written and oral evidence was led by the parties, which shall be dealt with later.
(3.) Labour Court has returned a finding that the workmen are not the employees of respondent no.9 and they were engaged on different dates from 1977 to 1990. Further finding has been returned that workmen were illegally terminated from 1.1.1991. The argument raised on behalf of petitioner that reference itself was incompetent, as the employer herein is an establishment of Government of India, has not been entertained since no specific plea in this regard was taken by the petitioner in the written statement. Relief of reinstatement alongwith back wages and other service benefits has thus been granted. Cost of Rs.10,000/- has also been awarded to the workmen.;