MANAGEMENT OF EXPRESS PUBLICATIONS (MADURAI) LTD. BY ITS DY. GENERAL MANAGER Vs. MR. SIDDARAJU S/O SIDDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE management has sought for quashing the award passed by the II Addl. Labour Court, Bangalore on 29.12.2005 in Ref. 64/1997.

(2.) AS it transpires, the respondent was working as a Packer in the Packing Department with effect from June 1989 without any break in service. He had passed his SSLC and was aged about 28 years. However, during December 1992, a false complaint has been lodged against him accusing of removing Rs. 108/ - worth copies of Indian Express and Kannada Prabha Supplementaries through the window of the Premises and later after (sic) was removed from service. Later, in the criminal case he was acquitted. Thereafter, after acquittal on 30.11.1995, he approached the management seeking to take him back on duty. The management refused employment. According to the workman, at the time of joining in June 1989 as a Packer, he was paid Rs. 16/ - per day and later, it was enhanced to Rs. 25/ - per day. He was discharging the duties assigned to him with utmost devotion. According to the workman, although he was assured that he could report for duties after the acquittal, he was refused employment He was working as Packer in the Packing Section and the said Section was looted after by the Manager of the company i.e., Sankaran Nair who had filed a false case against him. On the ground that there is illegal removal, the workman sought for reinstatement for which, counter was filed before the Labour Court by the management. After inquiry, Labour Court passed the impugned award of reinstatement, with continuity of service and other consequential benefits and 50% back wages from die date of dismissal till his reinstatement. Against the said order, management is before this Court on various grounds.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner management, respondent workman was engaged by an independent contractor to carried out certain operations. The contractor had obtained registration certificate under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Taking the workmen was entrusted to one Seshadri and the workman was engaged by the said contractor. The contractor has relinquished the contract on 1.4.1990. Thereafter, one Gideon took over the contract and he also had obtained a license and they themselves were supervising the work of the labour engaged by them. The workman was the employee of Gideon and not directly employed by the petitioner. As such, there is no relationship of workman and the employer directly between the petitioner and the respondent. The question of refusal of employment by the management does not arise. In spite of the same, without application of mind, Labour Court passed the impugned award which calls for interference.