SUBODH KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Siddharth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Nigam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the award dated 24.2.1998 published on 31.7.1998.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner workman is that he was employed on the post of Supervisor in the factory of respondent no. 2 from March, 1990 and on 1.2.1993 his services were terminated by the respondent no.2. The petitioner raised industrial dispute after failure of the reconciliation proceedings, the State Government made a reference under Section 4-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The disputed reference for adjudication is as follows:-

(3.) IN support of his case, the workman filed 15 exhibits (Ex.-W-1 to Ex.- W-15). The copies of these documents have been annexed as annexure 1 to the writ petition. The respondent employer filed 17 documents namely, registration certificate issued under the Contract Labour Act, attendance register etc. Statement of the workman was recorded alongwith two other employees. By the award dated 24.2.1998, the reference was decided against the petitioner and it was held that there was no employee-employer relationship between the workman and the respondent no.2. The petitioner was not workman of the respondent establishment and was employed through contractor as such industrial dispute raised by him cannot be adverted to. Sri Siddharth, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that award passed by the labour court is illegal and is based on misreading of evidences of the record. The labour court has misconstrued the documents namely exhibits W-5 and Ex. W-7. The witness of the employer has failed to corroborate the documents Ex. W-5 to W-7 in his statement recorded before the labour court. He expressed his ignorance about the name of the contractor who was given contract of washing bottles during the period in which the petitioner was employed. Despite the said fact, the labour court on the basis of the statement of witness of employer has recorded wrong finding that the petitioner was not direct employee of the respondent employer.