KOMAL KUMAR Vs. J P S MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Komal Kumar, before this Hon'ble Court ithe proprietor s of M/s. Inder Gears and has challenged the recovery persuant to the award dated 15th May, 1993 passed in I.D. No. 29 of 1992 by the Labour Court. The main case of the petitioner is that he is connected with M/s. Inder Gears and had no connection with the management of M/s. Inder Wills. The impugned award on finding the termination of the workmen of the concern M/s. Inder Wills to be illegal directed the reinstatement of the workmen alongwith consequential benefits.

(2.) The reference was sought impugning the illegal termination of the services of 15 workmen with M/s. Inder Wills. The Labour Court record a finding that the notice to the management of M/s. Inder Wills was served but no one appeared on behalf of the management. The sum and substance of the dispute before the Labour Court according to the workmen was that upon claiming the dues including the minimum wages in the month of February, 1991, the management become annoyed and the workmen's services were terminated from April, 1991. The Tribunal found that all the workmen were in continuous service of the management since 1984-85 till 26th April, 1991 and consequently found that the workmen were entitled to a judgment in their favour and the Labour Court held that the workmen were deemed to be in service of the management with continuity of service and full back wages.

(3.) The aforesaid award has been challenged in the present petition by Shri Komal Kumar who is the proprietor of M/s. Inder Gears. He claimed in his writ petition not to have any knowledge or connection with the management of Inder Wills against whom the award had been passed by the Labour Court. He further stated that the workmen had not been in the employment of the petitioner or his firm M/s. Inder Gears. It was also pleaded that the award had been passed against a certain unknown firm with which the petitioner never had any connection and the recovery of the award is sought to be made wrongly against the petitioner. The writ petition also averred that at no stage the notices were served on the petitioner. The petitioner on the above pleadings persuaded this Court to issue notice and got a stay of the recovery proceedings from this Court on 22nd September, 1994 which order has continued to remain in operation up-to-date.