PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL HOUSE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE workman (the petitioner herein) has filed this writ petition seeking to challenge the award dated 05. 12. 2005 passed by the Labour Court, Delhi then presided by Mr. D. K. Malhotra holding that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit on account of his alleged illegal termination from service by the respondents. In the impugned award, the court below has recorded a finding of fact that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondents. The said finding of fact is based upon cogent evidence discussed in the award. The petitioner has filed a statement of claim under Section 10 (4) (a) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directly before the Labour Court stating that he was employed as a driver by management No. 1 i. e. M/s International Travel house Ltd. with whom he worked w. e. f. 14. 12. 1996 till he was illegally terminated on 30. 09. 2003. The statement of claim filed before the Labour Court is at pages 18-23 of the paper book. The statement f claim does not disclose any cause of action against management No. 2 i. e. M/s Personal Aid. The court below did not accept the plea of the petitioner that he was appointed as a driver by management no. 1 because of the admission of the petitioner himself before the Conciliation Officer in settlement document Ex. MW-1/a where he admitted that he was an employee of M/s Personal Aid. Though the petitioner admitted before the Conciliation Officer that he was not an employee of management No. 1 i. e. M/s International Travel House Ltd but he chose to file statement of claim only against management No. 1 suppressing the document of settlement Ex. MW-1/a for reasons best known to him. The fact that the petitioner was not an employee of management No. 1 is borne out not only from his admission contained in settlement document Ex. MW-1/a but also by other documentary evidence discussed in para 6 of the impugned award. In view of the above, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India would not like to interfere in finding of fact arrived at by the court below that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. I, therefore, do not find any merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.