JITENDER KUMAR Vs. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has impugned the award dated 6th November, 2007 declining the claim of the petitioner for regularization of his services with the respondents. Reference was made by the Central Government to the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court II by letter dated 5th October, 2004 for adjudication as follows:

(2.) The respondents had contested the claim of the workman contending that the petitioner were engaged by the contractor, AMA Pvt. Ltd. for performing the work of irregular nature. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court II has held that it was the duty of the petitioner to establish their claim that they were under the control and supervision of the management/respondents which could be proved by cogent documentary evidence and the inference that the petitioner was under the supervision and control of the Management, could not be drawn on the basis of the deposition on affidavit only filed by the petitioner. Relying on the fact that no documents have been filed showing that any duty was assigned to petitioner by the respondents and his work was controlled by the Administrative Officer of respondents and the fact that the appointments were given by the AMA Pvt. Ltd., it was held that the petitioner was not under the supervisors and other officials of the respondents nor he was engaged by the respondents/management. The Tribunal also relied on the fact that no document regarding economic control and control over workers subsistence, skill and continued employment have been filed and thus holding that the workman has failed to prove the averments of the claim statement and relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court has held that the petitioner was not employed by the respondents nor he was under the supervision and control of the respondents and consequently he is not the employee of the respondents and is not entitled for regularization.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1893= (1995) 5 SCC 27, Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha and others to contend that even if the labour contract was genuine, neither the respondent had obtained any prior permission to engage the contract labor for the work being done by the petitioner nor the appropriate Government had accorded permission to the respondent to get the work done through contract labor nor there is any sanction about the contract system in the respondent and section 10 of the Contract Labor (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 put embargo upon the respondents to employ the contract for the work which is perennial in nature.