VYAS, J. - (1.) HEARD at admission stage.
(2.) THE instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the judgment and award dt. 14. 2. 2003 (Annex. 5) passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara may be quashed and set aside. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 - workman raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. However, the said conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation officer submitted failure report to the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government vide notification dtd. 21. 4. 2001 referred the matter for adjudication to the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara. The learned Labour Court issued notices to the parties. The respondent No. 1 - workman submitted statement of claim alleging, inter alia, that he was engaged as daily wage employee on 19. 6. 1997. His services were terminated from 16. 3. 2000 illegality, without complying with the mandatory provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1947 ). He has also not been paid the salary for the months of October, November, December, 1999 and January a. 02. 2000 and on demand of wages, his services have been terminated by the petitioner on 16. 3. 2000. Hence, the respondent No. 1 - workman was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. Written statement was filed by the petitioner in which it was alleged that the respondent - workman was not in employment of the petitioner but he was engaged through sharp/reliance security, which was employer of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner have acted in accordance with the norms and condition laid down by the Govt. So far as demand of the wages are concerned, the same were denied as the respondent No. 1 - workman was to be paid the salary by the sharp/reliance security for the months of October, 1999 to February, 2000. No direct payment used to be made by the petitioner to the respondent No. 1 workman but the total amount of wages was to be given to the sharp/reliance security as per contract agreement entered into between the sharp/reliance security and the Govt. of Rajasthan. The petitioner had no supervisory and the administrative control over the respondent No. 1 as there was no contract between the workman and the petitioner directly. Since the respondent No. 1 was not employed by the petitioner, hence the compliance or non- compliance of Section 25-F of the Art is irrelevant to the present controversy. After recording evidence of both the parties, the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara vide its judgment and award dtd. 14. 2. 2003 (Annex. 5), allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 1 workman and directed reinstatement of the respondent- workman without back wages.
(3.) IN the instant petition, the main contention of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 was not even employee of the petitioner. He was engaged through Sharp/reliance Security with whom the petitioner had entered into contract for supply of labour. Thus, there was no relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. In my opinion, the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are based on correct appreciation of evidence. The learned Labour Court has clearly recorded that the witness produced on behalf of the Department, namely, Karnidan has admitted in his cross-examination that the respondent No. 1 was working as pump driver and in the log-book signatures of Chhagan Lal are there for the period from 19. 6. 1997 to 15. 3. 2000, which clearly shows that the respondent-workman was working with the petitioner. The workman in his statement has also stated that he was engaged by Assistant Engineer Kothariji. However, the Department was not examined the said Assistant Engineer, Kothariji. The learned Labour Court has drawn adverse inference for not producing Kothari Ji during which period, the workmen were engaged. The learned Labour Court has also held that from the log-book it is also apparent that the petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. So far as engagement of the respondent- workman by the Security agency is concerned, no documentary evidence was produced to show that the respondent-workman was engaged through a security agency and there was contract between the security agency and the petitioner. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Labour Court has recorded a finding that the respondent- workman was engaged by the petitioner and before terminating his services provisions of Section 25f of the Act of 1947 have not been complied with. Thus, the findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court are based on correct appreciation of entire evidence and material available on record and it cannot be said that the findings of the Labour Court are erroneous or perverse or patently unreasonable or based on no material on record. The findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court do not suffer from any basic illegality or infirmity. ;