ORG SYSTEMS LIMITED Vs. BRIGBHUSHAN RAMKEVAL PANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the award dated 29.03.2000 passed by the Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference [LCV] No. 319/1991, whereby the Labour Court has directed the petitioner to reinstate respondent no. 1 in service with 75% back wages.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner Company had given the Miscellaneous service contract to respondent no. 2 vide contract dated 02.01.1989. In pursuance of the said contract, respondent no. 2 had been given licence to supply 25 workers to the petitioner Company. Under the said contract, which was awarded to respondent no. 2, respondent no. 1 was working as Peon with the petitioner company. In short, respondent no. 1 was the employee of respondent no. 2. As the services of respondent no. 1 were terminated, without following due procedure, he raised a dispute against respondent no. 2. However, the said reference was amended after a period of two years, vide order dated 07.09.1993 and thereafter the same was ultimately referred to the Labour Court for adjudication being Reference [LCV] No. 319/1991. Before the Labour Court, both the parties adduced evidence and after appreciating the material produced before it, the Labour Court partly allowed the reference with the aforesaid directions. Hence, this petition.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The main contention of the petitioner company is that there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioner company and respondent no. 1 and, therefore, respondent no. 1 is not an employee of the petitioner company. From the record it transpires that the petitioner company had entered into contract with respondent no. 2, vide contract dated 02.01.1989 for carrying out the miscellaneous work of the company. In pursuance of the same, respondent no. 2 was issued licence to supply workmen to the petitioner company. Under the said contract, respondent no. 1 was serving as peon with the petitioner company. Therefore, respondent no. 1 was the employee of respondent no. 2. The said fact is established from the wage and attendance registered maintained by respondent no. 2, wherein the name of respondent no. 1 is shown at Sr. 13 of the register of wages. However, the name of the employees appear in the register of wages, only if they are employed by the contractor under the Contract Labour Act. Apart from that respondent no. 2 - contractor in his deposition at Exhibit-9, had admitted that respondent no. 1 is his employee and that wages were paid by him and that his attendance was also maintained by him.