PURANGIRI BHAGWANGIRI MEGHNATHI Vs. ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Nikul K. Soni, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

(2.) By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who was working as Security Guard, according to him under the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has challenged the award of the Labour Court dtd. 31/12/2018, by which, the reference of the petitioner has been rejected.

(3.) The petitioner by filing statement of claim Exh.4 before the Labour Court put up a case that he was working as Security Guard from 7/12/2005 at Shahpur Sub Office and his services were terminated with effect from 1/6/2009. It was his case before the Labour Court that the termination was in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 on a written statement filed at Exh.10 suggested that the petitioner was not a direct employee of the Electricity Company, but, was employed by the Contractor M/s. Alert Allied Services Limited and that he was appointed by the agency and, therefore there was misjoinder of necessary party and the claim cannot be entertained.