(1.) These petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenge the respective awards passed by the Labour Court by which the respondent workmen have been directed to be reinstated with back-wages.
(2.) Special Civil Application No.8446 of 2019 was argued as the lead matter. In the aforesaid Special Civil Application, the Labour Court by its award dtd. 31/3/2018 has directed the petitioner to reinstate the workman with 50% of back-wages.
(3.) Facts in brief would indicate that the it is the case of the respondent that he was working under the petitioner. He had joined on 2/5/2005 and he was terminated from his services on 20/12/2009. He therefore raised an industrial dispute, filed a statement of claim, stating that termination of services was in violation of the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and he therefore deserved to be reinstated. The petitioner employer filed a written statement at Exh.8. It was the case of the employer that the workman was not his employee that was one of the contractor Shri Bharat M. Patel. The other contention that was raised was he being in a supervisory capacity, he was not a 'workman' and therefore the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act would not apply. The workman examined himself at Exh.9. At Exh.10 he produced documentary evidence with regard to his work assignment on 18/9/2008, 19/9/2008 and 7/2/2009. The employer examined one Prafful Maganbhai Patel at Exh.18. Shri Bharat M. Patel was examined at Exh.24. Certain documents were produced by Shri Bharat M. Patel at Exh.26 which was a copy of the contract and one Dashrath Lakhubhai Jadeja was the third witness examined by the employer. Based on the discussion of these evidences the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent workman deserved to be reinstated with 50% back-wages, because it was not proved on record though canvassed by the petitioner employer that the respondent was the employee of one contractor Shri Bharat M. Patel.