Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) PETITIONER Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sriganganagar and another have preferred this writ petition against the judgment and award dated 21.4.2008 passed by Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar in Claim Case No. 29/2006, by which, award was passed by the learned Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar in favour of the respondent workman whereby respondent workman was ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and 50% back -wages. Brief facts narrated in the writ petition are that respondent No. 2 was engaged through contractor known as District Ex -Servicemen Welfare Samiti, Sriganganagar on contract basis as Supervisor. For providing the said services, an agreement was arrived at in between the Superintending Engineer (O & M), erstwhile R.S.E.B., Sriganganagar and President of the aforesaid welfare cooperative society on 20.2.1998, by which, it was agreed upon that under the Executive Engineer, Sriganganagar there is requirement of one Supervisor and, in lieu of sending certain incumbent, the first party was to pay Rs. 2100/ - per month to the second party as per contract rate agreed between the parties. The agreement arrived at in between the parties was extended from time to time. Respondent No. 2 was engaged through aforesaid welfare society on 30.1.2002 as Supervisor and he was allowed to continue on the said post without any break up to 10.6.2004. Thereafter, the services of respondent workman Tej Khan was terminated with effect from 10.6.2004. Respondent workman raised industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer but, upon failure of the conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred to the appropriate Government for reference and vide notification dated 16.11.2006, following reference was made to the Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar:
(2.) AFTER reference, the respondent workman filed his claim on 7.3.2007, in which, it is claimed by him that he was appointed on the post of Supervisor in pursuance of the recommendation made by Ex -Servicemen Welfare Society, Sriganganagar. On 4.2.2002 the Junior Engineer, Kesarisinghpur gave orders for joining of the respondent workman and he joined duties on 18.2.2002. In the claim petition, it is specifically mentioned that workman continued on the said post till 10.6.2004 and completed 240 days in the preceding one calendar year. Thereafter, the services of the respondent workman were terminated without compliance of sections 25A and 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner Nigam (erstwhile RSEB) filed its reply to the claim, in which, it is denied that respondent workman was appointed on the post of Supervisor and, in fact, for some period he was appointed as temporary driver through the ex -servicemen welfare Samiti, Sriganganagar, therefore, no relationship of master and servant came in existence because appointment was made under agreement arrived at in between the ex -servicemen welfare society, on the one hand, and Superintending Engineer (O & M), on the other hand. Therefore, it is prayed in the reply by the petitioner Nigam that the petitioner itself is not employer of the workman and reference deserves to be answered against the workman.
(3.) AFTER filing reply, opportunity to lead evidence was given by the Labour Court to both the parties and, in support of claim, affidavit of workman Tej Khan was filed and eleven documents were exhibited. On behalf of the petitioner Corporation, affidavit of NAW -1 Balram Verma and affidavit of NAW -2 S.K. Gupta were filed. After hearing both the parties, learned Judge, Labour Court, Sriganganagar answered the reference in favour of the respondent workman and held that as per record of the case, the workman has established that there is relationship of servant and master in between the workman and petitioner Corporation because the Welfare Samiti, as per agreement, sponsored name of the petitioner for the post of Supervisor and this fact is not disputed by the Corporation. Learned Judge, Labour Court observed in para 6 of the award that all the documents, Ex. -1 to Ex. -11, filed by the workman were accepted by the Corporation, therefore, finding was given that respondent workman completed 240 days and, for valid termination, compliance of sections 25F and 25H was to be made.;