- (1.) Civil Misc. No. 5731 of 2014 Prayer made in the Civil Misc. Application for placing on record Annexures P/3 to P/9 and dispensing with the filing of the certified copies of the same is allowed. The Civil Misc. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Civil Writ Petition No. 18209 of 2013. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 29.3.2012 (Annexure P/2) whereby reference has been decided against the petitioner-workman by recording a finding that there was no relationship of employer and employee inter-se the present parties. A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the case of the petitioner-workman was that he was appointed on 2.12.1997 as Molding Operator with the respondent-company and on 6.12.2000, the respondent-company refused to take him on duty. He having completed 240 days and having drawn salary of Rs. 2500 per month was entitled for reinstatement on account of violation of mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The defence taken by the respondent-management was that there was no master servant relationship which existed between the parties and the workman had been deputed by the contractor M/s. J.K. Enterprises, Gurgaon which was duly registered under Contract Labour (R & A) Act, 1970 with effect from 1.10.1999 as Helper to perform the duties of unskilled helper such as loading unloading and packing.
(2.) In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and tendered into evidence various documents including production reports Ex. P.W. 1/3 to Ex. P.W. 1/5 and the shift schedule Ex. P.W. 1/6. On the other hand, respondent management examined Sonu Singh as RW-1, who was working with M/s. J.K. Enterprises, Gurgaon who deposed that the petitioner-workman was deputed on the establishment of the respondent under the control of M/s. J.K. Enterprises, Gurgaon and he had not completed 240 days in the last preceding 12 months from 6.12.2000. To substantiate the said fact the appointment letter, application given by the petitioner, and Wages Register were also produced as Ex. M1, Ex. M2 and Ex. M-3 respectively. The appointment letter dated 1.10.1999 was also taken into account to notice that relationship of the employer and employee was between the petitioner and the contractor and even the register of payment for wages for the period October, 1999 to March, 2000 where the name of the workman found mentioned was also taken into consideration. The fact that Charan Singh-petitioner had admitted his signatures on the appointment letter is also a matter of record and accordingly a factual finding of fact has been recorded that the relationship of employer and employee was not inter-se the petitioner and the respondent No. 2-company but it was with the contractor M/s. J.K. Enterprises.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the production reports but the same are of no value as there is no denial to the fact that the petitioner was working in the unit but it was only contended that he was employee of the contractor. Once he was working in the unit, the production reports would be in the name of the petitioner and the Labour Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioner was employee of the contractor since the production report were only for the purpose of calculating the output of the worker. The plea of the workman that he had been working from 1997 had also been rightly rejected by the Labour Court as appointment letter was issued to the petitioner by the contractor who is having licence under Contract Labour (R & A) Act, 1970 and was of October, 1999. The workman had not produced any independent evidence on record that he had worked prior to 1999 independently with the respondent No. 2- management. A factual finding of fact has, thus, been recorded by the Labour Court. The petitioner never impleaded the contractor as party and took the risk of only litigating against the respondent No. 2-company and he has been unsuccessful in the same, which is not liable to be interfered with in view of the facts which have been summarized above.;