JORAWAR SINGH Vs. NAVNEET GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a delay of almost 2 years in filing the petition. Be that as it may, it is the petitioner's case that he had worked diligently for the respondent for a period of 13 years as a security guard. There was no complaint about the services rendered by the workman. He sought payment of his dues/wages and other entitlements in terms of applicable labour laws including payment of overtime as he rendered services for 12 hours a day, but was effectively paid only for 8 hours.

(2.) The claim petition was dismissed by the impugned order dated 27.02.2018 in LIR No. 7579/2016 on the ground that the respondent being a society of apartment owners, had engaged the services of the petitioner and the same cannot be treated as an industry. Therefore, its employee cannot be treated as workman and the latter would have no locus to prefer the claim petition before the learned Labour Court. It relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Management of Som Vihar Apartment Owners Housing Society vs. Workmen C/o Engineering and General Mazdoors, (2002) 9 SCC 652. The reasoning of the impugned order for dismissal of the petitioner's claim petition is as under :

(3.) The petitioner contends that his services were not personal to any apartment holder but for the members of the Society and for the entire complex.