GURUMURTHY AND OTHERS Vs. THE MANAGEMENT OF MYSORE PAPER MILLS LIMITED, PAPER TOWN BHADRAVATHI - 577302 SHIMOGA DISTRICT. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS claiming to be the employees of the respondent -Paper Mills initiated conciliation proceeding alleging denial of employment from February, 1994 which ended in a failure report, following which the State Government, in exercise of power under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short 'ID Act', referred for adjudication to the Labour court, D.K., Mangalore, the industrial dispute over refusal of employment by order dt. 4.9.1998, registered as IDR 61/1998. Parties filed their respective statements whereafterwards, the Labour Court by award dt. 28.7.2010 rejected the reference which when called in question in W.P. 7146/2004 was set -aside and proceeding remitted for fresh consideration after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties to adduce evidence by order dt. 30.5.2007. On remand, petitioners examined two witnesses as WW -2 and WW -3 and marked documents Exs.W3 to W56, while for the respondent -management none were examined nor documents marked. The Labour Court having regard to the material on record, more appropriately Ex -W1, xerox copy of the intra office correspondence of the respondent -Management not shown to have secured from proper custody and as WW -1 did not speak to Ex.W1 coupled with the fact Exs.W24 to W37 were the bills raised by M. Basavaraj, WW -1 and payments made through cheques after deducting the provident fund amount and statutory deductions, as well as Exs.W38 to W45. the Work Orders issued to WW -1 M. Basavaraj, the contractor, concluded that in the absence of relevant material constituting substantial legal evidence of the facts in issue that the petitioners were not contract employees but directly employed by the respondent -Management, rejected the reference by award dt. 29.7.2010 Annexure -D. Hence these petitions.

(2.) ALTHOUGH Sri. S.B. Mukkannappa. learned counsel for the petitioners points to the depositions of the witnesses for the petitioners to contend that WW -1 M. Basavaraj, allegedly the contractor had denied the contract, nevertheless in the light of Exs.W24 to W37 being the bills based on which payments were made to M. Basavaraj as a contractor under the work orders Exs.W38 to 45 issued in his name, examined as WW -1, no exception can be taken to the reasons, findings and conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court in the award impugned, holding that the petitioners were not directly employed by the respondent -Management. Consequently the reliefs of regularisation or of reinstatement muchless backwages were justifiably rejected.