- (1.) CHALLENGE in this writ application is to the order dated 28.02.2004 (Annexure -6) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum (East) in M.J. Case No. 15 of 1996, whereby the Respondent, Ramdeo Sharma has been awarded one month notice pay and retrenchment compensation for the period from 1989 -1994.
(2.) THE petitioners case in brief is that the petitioner is an Establishment carrying on Trade and Business of manufacturing, repairing and testing of body/machines of vehicles. Under an agreement dated 07.11.1998, the Respondent, Ramdeo Sharma was appointed as a Production Manager in the Petitioners Establishment for a period of one year commencing from 01.01.1989. The period was subject to further renewal by way of fresh agreements between the parties. After the expiry of the stipulated period in the Agreement, the Respondent no. 2 left the services of the petitioner and did not opt for renewal of the Agreement. However, subsequently the Respondent no. 2 approached the petitioner, offering his services as Technical Advisor. On his proposal being accepted, an Agreement dated 21.04.1991 was entered into by and between the petitioner and the sole Respondent under which the services of the Respondent as a Technical Advisor as required from time to time on Piece Meal Basis, was to be taken. The relations between the petitioner and the sole Respondent was thus, conditioned under the terms of the Agreement dated 21.04.1991 as a Technical Advisor on Piece Meal Basis. However, notwithstanding the above Agreement, the sole Respondent filed an application under Section 33 (C) Clause 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, claiming himself to be a workman under the petitioner on a monthly wage of Rs. 4,000/ -, besides a production incentive of Rs. 4,000/ -per annum with annual increments of 10 per cent as monthly wages and further, claiming that the petitioner had illegally and wrongfully terminated his services with effect from 08.04.1995 without giving one months notice and without paying him one months wages in lieu of such notice and also without paying the Retrenchment benefits as per the law. The petitioner had denied the entire claim of the Respondent taking a definite stand that the Respondent, Ramdeo Sharma was not a workman under the petitioner and also taking an objection to the maintainability of the proceeding on the ground that the provisions of Section 33 (C) (2) are not applicable to the facts of the case. By the impugned order, the learned court below allowed the claim of the Respondent directing the petitioner to pay a total sum of Rs. 37,000/ -to the Respondent. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent, wherein he has reiterated the same stand as taken by him before the court below claiming that the was a workman employed under the petitioners establishment on a monthly wages of Rs. 4,000/ -together with production incentive @ Rs.32,000/ -each year with annual increment of 10 per cent on monthly basis and further alleging that the petitioner had terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 08.10.1995 without giving one months notice in advance or one months wages in lieu of such notice and without paying the Retrenchment benefits as per law.
(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel for the sole Respondent.;