R. KESAVAN Vs. R.L. LOGANATHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The common Award dated 11.10.2012 passed by the fourth respondent-Labour Court in I.D.No.40 of 2011 is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) The writ petitioner states that he joined in the third respondent-company on 18.01.2006 as identified by the respondents 1 and 2. His last drawn salary was Rs.6,000/- per month. The writ petitioner was terminated from service without any enquiry and without following the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The termination was effected from 10.08.2010. The writ petitioner states that he worked for more than 300 days and was employed as a Machine Operator along with other Machine Operators in the third respondent-company. Respondents 1 and 2 have applied license to only supply manpower to the third respondent and the writ petitioner worked for more than 300 days at the time of his termination. Though the respondents 1 and 2 had obtained license to supply manpower to the third respondent-company, no valid original license/renewal was produced either by respondents 1 and 2 or by the third respondent-company, for the reasons best known to them.

(3.) Respondents have taken a stand before the Labour Court that the writ petitioner was not the direct employee of the third respondent-company and the writ petitioner never worked under the third respondent-company. The third respondent-company had not supervised the work of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has no skill or educational qualification or previous work experience to work as a Machine Operator. The writ petitioner was examined as WW-1 and Exs.W-1 to W-16 were marked and they were treated as common evidence in I.D.No.40 of 2011 and in other connected cases. On the side of the management, one Mr.Sivaraman was examined as MW-1 and marked only copies of certain documents as Exs.M-1 to M-7 as common evidence.