BHAVESHBHAI DINKARRAY MEHTA Vs. SUPREINTENDENT ENGINEER AND 2

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-workman is before this court challenging the award dated 9th August, 2010, passed by the Labour Court rejecting the Reference (LCR) No. 168 of 2000.

(2.) The petitioner workman had pleaded in his statement of claim that he was appointed on the post of Meter Reader on permanent basis with a monthly wage of Rs. 700/- and was being paid paisa 0.30 on voucher for reading of one electronic Meter. He contended that he was being paid said amount by cheque and he was employed as such with the respondent employer since 12 months until 21st October, 1999 when his service came to be terminated, he unsuccessfully raised demand by notice dated 08.12.1994 for restoration of his service. It was his case that he was appointed on contractual basis but the contract was camouflaged and that he had completed 240 days of services preceding 12 months of his termination. The workman averred that at the time of his termination juniors were continued in service, as also other persons were subsequently appointed.

(3.) Per contra, the respondent employer came out with the case that the petitioner was independent contractor having been appointed in pursuance to his application dated 26.10.1998 at Exhibit-30 @ 0.30 paisa per Meter reading; without any control of the employer. It was contended that the petitioner was being paid commission and he was not bound by fix time of service nor was he entitled to any leave or was required to mark his attendance. It was contended that on completion of work, the contract was cancelled on 28.10.1999. It was also contended that being a public employer, the respondent was bound by recruitment procedure provided under the rules and that the petitioner was not appointed under such recruitment procedure.