UTTAR PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL IV UTTAR PRADESH AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The U.P. State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) has come up to this Court against the award dated 29.8.1995 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) given by the Industrial Tribunal IV, Agra/respondent No. 1.

(2.) The facts, in order to decide rival claims, travel in a narrow compass. Petitioner, in order to provide security to the residential colony meant for the petitioner's employees made advertisement requiring some security personnel upon which a contract was given to M/s. Industrial Security Service of Allahabad/respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the I.S.S.). In respect to the agreement for providing security staff for the residential colony, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the I.S.S. on September 12, 1988. Initially, the contract was for a period of six months but thereafter by further agreement dated October 7, 1989, it was extended for a further period of one year. Both the agreements dated September 12, 1988 and October 7, 1989, have been annexed as Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition. In pursuance of the aforesaid contract, the I.S.S./Contractor, provided its own staff for the purpose of security in the colony area. As stated in para 6 of the writ petition, per requirement the staff uses to increase or decrease per prevailing situation. The workers of the I.S.S. through their Union/ respondent No. 2 started raising illegal demands with regard to their service conditions, pay, etc., which was against the terms of the agreement entered between the petitioner and the I.S.S. In this respect, they also filed a case under the Payment of Wages Act being P.W. Case No. 50 of 1990 in which the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act by order dated 27.9.1990 held that I.S.S. is responsible for the payment of wages and the petitioner is not at all responsible for the payment and direction was given to the I.S.S. to pay wages to the workers in question. It has been pleaded by the petitioner that since workers of the contractor were agitating, the internal security of the colony was being threatened, it was felt that they would not be able to perform their duties and provide security to the colony and its residential members. Accordingly on 12.4.1990, the security committee passed resolution and recommended the industrial security service, to replace their security staff. It is in view of this resolution, I.S.S. by its letter dated 25.4.1990 informed the petitioner that they are withdrawing their security guards and replacing them with new security guards. It has been further stated in para 13 of the writ petition that 25 workers mentioned in the reference order were withdrawn by the I.S.S. and they were sent to other places where I.S.S. had their contract and so far persons mentioned at S.Nos. 2 to 25 of the reference order are still working with I.S.S. Only one person, viz., Salig Ram Misra as shown at S. No. 1 of the reference order contested the matter before the Tribunal and no other person mentioned in the reference order at S.Nos. 2 to 25 appeared or contested before the Tribunal. The State Government in view of the withdrawal of the security guards, as stated above, on a dispute having been raised in that regard referred the matter for adjudication before the Tribunal. The term of the reference order is to the effect

(3.) The Union filed Its written statement on 22.10.1991 upon which the petitioner also filed written statement on 17.12.1991. On filing the written statement, Union filed rejoinder upon which the petitioner also filed their rejoinder. On behalf of the petitioner, it was pleaded that the workers in reference order are not their employees and there is no master and servant relationship. It was stated that these employees are contract labourers of the contractor-I.S.S. for which the contract was given vide agreement dated 12.9.1988 and 7.10.1989 and thereafter, the contract Itself was terminated on August 31, 1990. It was further pleaded that the petitioners have not been paying wages to the workers and it was being paid directly by the I.S.S. On behalf of the workers, the solitary statement of Salig Ram Misra was given. The petitioners in support of their pleading examined N.K. Varshney and R.K. Tewari, Executive Engineers. It appears that Industrial Security Service who was the party before the Tribunal did not file any written statement nor appeared at any stage in the proceedings. Upon the pleadings of the parties and the evidence as came before the Tribunal, the award was given by which all the workers were directed to be absorbed as regular staff of the Board on the security side on priority basis. It is this award dated 29.8.1995 which, made the petitioners aggrieved.