- (1.)This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court (Tribunal) Jabalpur dated 27.2.2015 whereby the terms of reference sent by appropriate government is answered by the tribunal in favour of the workman.
(2.)Shri Panjwani, learned counsel for the employer criticized the award by contending that the workman was not an employee of the petitioner/ management. He himself was a contractor. He took the contract of providing services of driver to Indian Airlines at a fixed monthly contract amount. Reliance is placed on paragraph 2 of the written statement filed before the tribunal. By taking this Court to the documents filed before the tribunal, learned counsel for the employer urged that the tribunal has failed to see that respondent was not a 'workman' within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the ID Act'), indeed, he was a contractor which is evident from the document filed by the management witness before the tribunal. Since, there was no master-servant relation between the petitioner and respondent. The tribunal erred in applying Section 25-F of the ID Act. The findings of the tribunal are perverse and liable to be interfered with. Reliance is also placed on a document dated 3.2.1994, photocopy of which was filed before the tribunal. It is canvassed by Shri Panjwani that this was a settlement arrived at before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) between the employer and workman wherein respondent signed in the capacity of contractor. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, the respondent can be treated to be workman of petitioner/ employer.
(3.)Per contra, Shri Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned award. It is submitted that definition of Contractor as per the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 makes it clear that only such person can be termed as Contractor who supplies contract labour for any work to the establishment of the employer. Since the workman herein himself was performing the duties and was getting wages in lieu thereof, he cannot be termed as Contractor. Apart from this, the tribunal has given detailed and justifiable reasons which may not be interfered with.