KAILASH CHAND SAIGAL Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the award dated 16.9. 1994 passed by the Labour Court.

(2.) The relevant facts for the purposes of deciding this writ petition are that respondent No.1, Om Parkash, alleged that his services were terminated by the petitioner illegally and a reference was made to Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the legality/illegality of termination of his service. In the claim respondent-workman alleged that he was employed with the petitioner since 1976 as a Sweeper on a monthly salary of Rs.130/-. He asked management for wages according to minimum wages notification which annoyed the management and his services were terminated with effect from 16.6.1978 without any reason and without issuing any charge sheet or show notice or without holding any enquiry. He served a demand notice on 2.7.1978 on the management claiming reinstatement. In the written statement, it was stated by the management that reference was bad as before Conciliation Officer a consent order was passed on 17.8.1978 which was duly signed by both parties and payment was to be made in terms of that order on 24.8.1978, but it could not be made on that date due to non-availability of Conciliation Officer. Finally on 18.11.1978 when AR of the employer attended the office of Conciliation Officer, he was told to come on 17.12.1978. On that date, claimant-workman refused to accept the compromise amount from the employer.

(3.) On merits, it was submitted that respondent was doing the work of cleaning the office of the petitioner only for about half an hour in the morning and similarly he was cleaning and sweeping some other offices in the same building. He was being paid Rs.60/- for this cleaning work. In February 1978 he offered to the petitioner that he would do additional work of dusting the office in the morning and petitioner agreed to pay him a sum of Rs.130/- per month for cleaning and dusting. Respondent used to do this work only in the morning and evening. Respondent-workman was providing similar service to other offices and he was self employed in this manner. Respondent-workman was not working under the directions or control of petitioner nor he was an employee of the petitioner, so there was no question of termination of his services. Labour Court framed the following issues:- (1)Whether the termination of services of Sh.Om Prakash is illegal and/or unjustified and if so to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect. (2)Whether any settlement was arrived at between the parties as alleged in para 1 of the preliminary objections. (3)Whether the reference is bad as alleged in para 2 of preliminary objections. (4)Whether the petitioner is a workman within the definition of section 2(s) of the I.D. Act.