JAGANNATH Vs. LAXMI AUTO AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE five petitioners workmen by this petition impugn the award dated 5th April, 2008 of the Industrial Adjudicator on the following reference: "Whether the services of workmen whose names appear in Annexure ,,A have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management, and if so to what sum of money as monetary relief alongwith consequential benefits in terms of existing laws/Govt. Notifications and to what other relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" against the petitioners workmen and holding that there was no relationship of employer-employee between the petitioners workmen and the respondent.

(2.) AT the outset, it may be stated that the petitioners workmen have filed CM No.5467/2011 under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC for impleadment of one Shri Moti Lal Jain as the respondent no.2 to the said petition. The writ petition as already filed impleads the respondent M/s Laxmi Auto Agency through both Shri Moti Lal Jain and Shri Chhaggan Mal Jain. However in response to the notice issued by this Court M/s Laxmi Auto Agency has appeared through Shri Chhaggan Mal Jain only. The petitioners workmen claim that since Shri Moti Lal Jain and Shri Chhaggan Mal Jain were/are partners of the respondent M/s Laxmi Auto Agency, need is felt to implead the said Shri Moti Lal Jain also.

(3.) THE Industrial Adjudicator placing reliance on (i) Nilgiri Coop. Marketing Society Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu 2004 LLR 351; (ii) Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani 2002 (93) FLR 179 (SC); (iii) Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan 2004 (4) LLN 845; (iv) Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas 2004 LLR 1022 (SC): 2004 (4) LLN 785; (v) Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Hariram 2004 (4) LLN 834; 2005 LLR 1 (SC); (vi) Surendranagar District Panchayat v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2006 LLR 250 has held that the burden to establish the relationship of employer and employee is on the workman and held the petitioners workmen in the present case to have failed to discharge the same.