ORIX AUTO INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES LIMITED Vs. VIKRAM CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions impugn the awards dated 25.10.2016, 28.01.2017, 12.01.2017, 30.01.2014 and 02.01.2014 passed by the learned Labour Court holding that: i) there was an employee-employer relationship between the petitioner and the respondents and ii) directing payment of lump sum monies to the respondents on account of illegal termination of their services. The petitioner contends that the impugned orders have erred, insofar as the respondents were not employees but only Business Associates. The learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the Business Agreement between the parties.

(2.) A rationale for the aforesaid conclusion in the impugned order, is as under: ".......

(3.) The Court however, would note that certain important elements of the agreement have not been taken into consideration, in particular the agreement unequivocally records that: it was a principal to principal arrangement. The primary and fundamental understanding between the parties that both were to contribute to the business, wherein one party would provide mechanism and the machinery (motor vehicles) and the other party- the Business Associate, would provide the services for running the vehicle for 12 hours for 26 days a month and revenue generated in the process would be shared on a fixed basis. How much revenue was necessarily to be generated was never fixed. It was entirely dependent upon the working style, commitment and luck of the Business Associate i.e. it would depend upon the number of passengers the Business Associate got to serve through the petitioner's messaging service and/or the walk-in passengers. So, there would always be an element of luck apropos the generation of revenue, which would be shared at the end of the month. There was no fixed monthly amount to be taken away by the Business Associate who claims to be an employee of the petitioner.