CENTRAL DISTILLERY AND BREWERIES LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dispute in this writ petition relates to the appointment of the workman in the petitioner's establishment. It is claimed that the respondent workman was appointed in the year 1984 and his services were terminated in the year, 1990. Dispute was raised by him before the State Government who referred the matter for adjudication under section 4K of Industrial Disputes Act. Labour Court after entering into the reference has allowed the claim of the workman respondent and directed his reinstatement along with 50 % back wages. It is this order which is subject-matter of challenge before this Court. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court has failed to appreciate the controversy raised before him. The petitioner in his written statement has stated that the respondent workman was not employed with the petitioner but was engaged by way of contract labour. Essentially he was employed by a contractor and not by the petitioner. Labour Court while allowing the contention of the workman has placed reliance on the certificate issued by the Maintenance Engineer of the petitioner's Company (Copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the counter affidavit). This certificate only mentions that the workman has worked under him in the capacity of Assistant Foreman during his stay from 1.7.1987 to 10.9.1989. On this plea Labour Court has concluded that the workman was employed with the petitioner. Even though the petitioner has not been able to show that the workman was employed by a contractor who was working in the establishment.

(2.) Be that as it may, the fact remains that on a certificate issued by the maintenance engineer it cannot be concluded that the workman was employed in the concerned department of the petitioner. Workman was still required to prove that he was employed in establishment of the petitioner for which necessary document was required to be shown by him. Even if, it is assumed that the certificate has been issued by the engineer, it does not prove that the workman has been working since 1987 to 1989. There is no other proof shown by the workman which would conclude that he was employed in the year, 1984, Even though, petitioner also has not been able to affirm his contention that the respondent workman was engaged by a contractor and had worked in the department. The only area of dispute i.e. required to be resolved is as to whether the workman was employed in the industry by a contractor or by the establishment. Reliance placed by the Labour Court on a certificate issued by the Engineer does not conclusively prove that he was employed in the year, 1984 and terminated in the year, 1990. In view of this, I allow this writ petition. The impugned award is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Labour Court for afresh determination as aforesaid. Labour Court shall issue notice to the workman and shall decide the dispute within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Petitioner is directed to furnish the copy of this order before the Labour Court within two weeks from today. The 50% of the amount already deposited shall remain with the Labour Court till disposal of the proceedings before the Labour Court.