- (1.) This order shall dispose of LPA Nos.102 to 115 of 2011 as all these appeals have raised common question of more or less identical facts. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from LPA No. 102 of 2011 (Balwinder Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others).
(2.) All these 14 appeals are against a common judgment dated 31.1.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. By the aforesaid order, the learned Single Judge has set-aside the common award dated 12.8.1999 passed by the learned Labour Court, Patiala, by which re-instatement in service with 50% back wages was granted to the appellants-workmen.
(3.) The learned Single Judge on an elaborate consideration of respective cases of the parties and the materials adduced before the learned Labour Court, particularly the bills of the Contractor, exhibited as Exhibit M-8 to M-55, came to the conclusion that there is no master and servant relationship between the appellant-workmen and the principal employer. The learned Single Judge also came to the conclusion that the appellantworkmen were engaged through a labour contractor who had paid wages to the workmen on receipt of the bills submitted by the contractor to the principal employer. In this regard, the learned Single Judge was also of the view that the supervisory control and assignment of work by the representative of the principal employer, which was proved by the materials on record, would not make the workmen direct employees under the principal employer. Accordingly, the writ petitions filed by the Management were allowed and the award passed by the learned Labour Court was interfered with, as already noticed.;