DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) An industrial award is under challenge at the behest of the employer.
(2.) Learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that, the private respondent was not the employee of the petitioner. The proceedings before the industrial tribunal was non est. Appropriate notice was not served upon the petitioner. He submits that, the impugned order directs regularization which is violative of the directions contained in 2006 Volume-IV Supreme Court Cases Page-1 (Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors.) . He draws attention of the Court to the various documents annexed to the writ petition and the affidavit-in-opposition in support of his contentions that, the private respondent was not an employee of the petitioner.
(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the private respondent submits that, the private respondent was the casual employee of the petitioner and that, his client is entitled to be regularized in service. In support of his contentions, he relies upon 2010 LLR 957 (General Manager (P&A), Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. General Secretary, General Employees Association and Ors.) , 2009 LLR Page-75 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai and Ors. v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court cum-Industrial Tribunal, Chennai and All India Reporter 1985 Supreme Court Page-670 (The Workmen of the Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Food Corporation of India) . He contends that, adequate and proper notice was given to the petitioner about the reference of the industrial dispute. The petitioner did not appear therein.;