MOHAN LAL SHARMA Vs. FAMOUS CINE LABORATORIES AND STUDIOUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition impugns the judgment and order rendered by the Industrial Court at Mumbai on 25/10/1996 thereby allowing partly Complaint (ULP) No. 686 of 1985. The petitioner had approached the Industrial Court seeking the benefit of permanency against the respondent no.1 and by the impugned order the Industrial Court held that the complainant was the employee of the respondent no.2 and the employer - employee relationship could not be proved between the respondent no.1 and the complainant. Therefore, relief of permanency was granted to the complainant against the respondent no.2 (permanent watchman) from October, 1986.

(2.) There is no dispute that the complainant was dismissed from service after conducting a departmental enquiry in October, 1994 and the order of dismissal which was the subject matter of challenge in another complaint filed before the Labour Court at Mumbai.

(3.) The respondent no.1 as well as respondent no.2 had filed Written Statement separately before the Industrial Court and averred that the complainant was employed as a watchman under respondent no.2. In support of the complaint, the complainant himself stepped in the witness box, where as for respondent no.1 Mr. Jagmohan Roogntha and for respondent no.2 Mr.Sitaram Thand were examined. The complainant admitted before the Labour Court that he was dismissed from service in October, 1994 when he was getting salary between Rs.4000/- to Rs.4500/- per month. In his cross-examination, by respondent no.1, the complainant admitted that during the years 1983 to 1985 he was working as a temporary watchman and the muster rolls from October, 1985 to March, 1993 he had signed. Similarly, the document at Exh.C-27 was the salary sheet maintained by the respondent no.1 and he admitted that his name did not find place in the same. He was shown the settlement signed between the respondent no.1 and the employees represented by the Union, he admitted that respondent no.1 at the relevant time had 110 workmen and in the list annexed to the said settlement of 110 workmen his name did not find place. He admitted that the document at Exh.U-22 was signed by him which was his application addressed to respondent no.2. He also admitted that he had studied upto 8th standard and he had signed the document at Exh.C-31. It was the receipt of payment and maintained by the respondent no.2.