S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 17.9.1998 vide which respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated in the service of the petitioner with full back wages and continuity of service. Respondent No. 2 had contended that he was employed by the partner/proprietor of M/s Balwant Brothers at Basti Danishmandan, Jalandhar and the petitioner of the same address as a Cutterman in November 1988. The petitioner is M/s Balwant Brothers (P) Ltd., Basti Danishmandan, Jalandhar. His services were terminated with effect from 30.5.1994 illegally. The Labour Court accepted his plea. The workman contended that the demand notice was given to both M/s Balwant Brothers (P) and the petitioner. Balwant Brothers had pleaded that the workman was not employed by them. The petitioner pleaded that the reference has been made without complying with the provisions of Sec. 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") and there was no material for the Government to form an opinion to make a reference. It also pleaded that Sec. 2A of the Act is not attracted. It is further pleaded that the workman wilfully, knowingly and intentionally started remaining absent without any application and getting the leave sanctioned with effect from 28.5.1994 afternoon. He was advised to join duty by a registered letter but it was returned undelivered with the remarks of the posta} authority as "refused". He was again asked to join the duty by letter dated 8.6.1995, but the same was again returned undelivered. The petitioner further pleaded that it came to know about the present dispute only after the receipt of the order of the Additional Labour Commissioner, Punjab vide which the dispute was referred for adjudication.
(2.) We have heard both the counsel and gone through the award of the Labour Court.
(3.) The case of the workman in the demand notice is that he had served both the respondents. Demand notice Exhibit MW1/1 is addressed to both the respondents while demand notice Exhibit MW2/1 is addressed only to M/s Balwant Brothers. The Labour Court after considering the oral evidence found that the documentary evidence suggested that both the petitioner and M/s Balwant Brothers had been maneuvering the record in such a manner so that the workman may not know as to whether he is an employee of M/s Balwant Brothers or of the petitioner. The Labour Court has considered the fact that Rakesh Kumar, Clerk, who appeared on behalf of M/s Balwant Brothers Pvt. Ltd. could not deny that E.S.I. Identity Card Exhibit MW3/5 of the workman was got issued at the instance of M/s Balwant Brothers. The petitioner does not deny that respondent was under its employment. Therefore, we find no reason why the above finding of the Labour Court should be disturbed.;