NAR BAHADUR Vs. MANAGEMENT OF SHREE ELECTRICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has impugned the award dated 9th April, 2003 holding that the petitioner has failed to prove that he was an employee of the management and consequently denying any relief as prayed by him.

(2.) BRIEF facts to comprehend the controversies between the parties are that the petitioner alleged that he was employed as a driver by the respondent/management at the salary of Rs. 1,000/- per month. He was terminated on 18th March, 1989. Before termination he was not even given the salary of february 1989. The petitioner contended that he was terminated because he was not provided any legal facilities such as appointment letters, attendance card, overtime, leave, etc. and when he demanded the same his services were terminated. The petitioner asserted that he is unemployed since the date of his termination and his termination is bad as no notice under Section 25 (F) was given to the petitioner before his termination.

(3.) THE respondent contested the claim of the petitioner contending that there is no relationship of employer and the employee between them, as the petitioner was not employed by the respondent as a driver. It was contended that the management is a partnership firm and one of the partners had been employing the petitioner as driver to drive the car on specific dates and the amounts were paid by the partner ranging from Rs. 45 to Rs. 50 for taking his services on specific days.