R.K.MERATHIA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has filed this writ petition challenging the Award dated 23.6.2006, passed in Reference Case No. 34/2004 by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dharbad.
(2.) THE following dispute was referred for adjudication. Whether the demand of Sri Surendra Pal Singh S/o Sri Balbir Singh from the management of M.E.C.L., R.C.S. Project, Dugda Coal Washery for reinstatement with full back wages is legal and justified? If so, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to? The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was appointed to the post of Sampling Assistant at Raw Coal Sampling Project of M/s Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., a Government of India Enterprises ( the Management for short) on 30.7.1998. He worked with effect from 1.4.1999. All of a sudden, he was stopped from duty with effect from 30.9 2001 in violation of Sec. 25F of the I. D. Act.
(3.) ON the other hand, the case of the Management, in short, is that petitioner was never appointed by the Management and as such there was no relationship of employer and employee between them. Petitioner's name along with others were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. There was an interview on 30.7.1998 but petitioner was not found fit. Further, the work of sampling of coal was assigned to the Management by M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited and M/s Steel Authority of India Limited. The Management has no work of coal sampling on its own. However, the job of coal sampling was undertaken as awarded by the client on contract basis. Such work was not of continuous and permanent nature and the Management had to wind up the coal sampling project soon on completion of the work awarded by the coal producer/user organization. The Management had entered into a specific contract on 31.3.1999 with M/s Bhayanak Security Agency ( hereinafter referred to as the contractor) for supplying technical and specialized man power for carrying out various sampling/chemical analytical jobs as the Management was not having such man power. Such contract was extended from time to time up to 30.9.2001. Petitioner and others were engaged by the contractor and were deployed with the Management. Clause 12 of such contract clearly stipulated that there would not be any employer and employee relationship between the Management and the persons deployed by the said contractor.;