- (1.) THIS order shall dispose of CWP Nos.7234, 11339 & 11360 of 2011, involving common questions of facts and law. To dictate orders, facts have been taken from CWP No.11360 of 2011.
(2.) THE plea of the petitioner -workman was that he was appointed with the respondent -Company on 09.09.1996 as a Driver and his services were terminated on 10.01.2000, without following the procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act'). At that point of time, he was getting salary of Rs. 2500/ - per month and prior to the termination, his signatures were taken on blank papers and his services were terminated, inspite of the fact that he worked for more than 240 days.
(3.) THE relationship of employer -employee was denied by the respondent -Management and a specific plea was taken that he was not on the roll of the Company during the said period and the workman was employed by some Executive of the Company and salary/wages were paid by the concerned officers, from their own pockets. The petitioner was never an employee of the Company and the relationship of the employer -employee never came into existence. The Management also took the plea that admittedly, there was no appointment letter and he was not appointed on the job of the Company and there was no question of contribution under the Employees State Insurance and Employees Provident Fund schemes. The petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed that he joined the respondent -Company on 09.09.1996 but no appointment letter was issued nor any wage slip was issued to him. He also examined Om Parkash as WW2, who was working as Security Supervisor in the Company and placed on record Exhibit WW2/1, copy of the attendance register to show that the petitioner was working as a Driver in the Company but the same was a photocopy. The management, in its defence, examined Pradip Kumar Jain as MW1, who took the same plea which was taken in the written statement and deposed that the petitioner was engaged by Sh.Sudhir Bachloo, the Manager of the Company, in his personal capacity. The engagement was purely private and had no connection or nexus with the company. The cars with registration numbers, which the petitioner -workman claimed to have driven had been sold in the year 1999 and no car was owned by the respondent -Company and no Driver was engaged by the Company and there was no post of Driver. The attendance register, for various period, from April, 1997 to 2000, were also exhibited.;