BHOGILAL MISTRY Vs. KANTIBHAI DHANJIBHAI MAKWANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is preferred assailing the award dated 24.03.2004 passed by the Labour Court, Bharuch, whereby the respondent had been ordered to be reinstated on his original post with 20% back wages.

(2.) Brief facts leading to this petition are as follow: 2. 1 The petitioner was an employee (now retired) of the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and he was working as a Deputy Executive Engineer of the said Corporation. It is disputed that the respondent does not have any employer employee relationship with the petitioner. The respondent was the workman of the sub contractor Shri M.S.Patel and not of the petitioner. It is the say of the petitioner that the respondent was working under the direct supervision and control of the sub contractor who had taken the work of the sweeping and cleaning etc. no salary has been paid to the respondent by the petitioner and he does not have any appointment letter as well. The aspect of working hours, leave, sanction of leave all have been prerogative of the sub contractor. It is also the say that the respondent's age in the year 1993 could be 16 (Sixteen) years and therefore, he could not have been employed by the government units therefore, has, approached this court with the following prayers:

(3.) This Court has heard at length learned Counsel Mr.Joshi appearing for M/s.Trivedi and Gupta who has reiteratively urged that employer employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondent workman is missing. He does have either the appointment letter or any other document, which would hold him as an employee of the petitioner. He was under the direct supervision of the sub contractor from the year 1993 as he claims. He, therefore, has urged that the labour court has materially erred in appreciating the evidence that has been adduced. He further urged that the respondent has made a false claim that he was working as a sweeper since 1993 and without holding any inquiry and without following any procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('I.D.Act' for short), his services has come to an end. He also further urged that in staff welfare fund and professional tax, no name of the present respondent is found and thus, the statutory record does reveal his status as being an employee of the petitioner. He further submitted that the payment is made through the contractor and directly by the petitioner to the respondent. 3. 1 According to the learned advocate, Ms.Davawala appearing for the respondent, neither any witness from the petitioner side has been examined nor is there any material to sustain its claim and the labour court has on the strength of the evidence, which had been adduced by the respondent had rightly held in his favour. She urged that as the respondent had continued to serve to the petitioner, no interference is needed in the decision of the labour court.