PANKAJ GUPTA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT ONE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order of the Prescribed Authority, Labour Court dated March 6, 2002 under the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act (hereinafter referred to as "Act").

(2.) In the writ petition, petitioner stated that he was working with the respondents No. 2 and 3 as Accountant Assistant. He was engaged by the respondent No. 3 and worked continuously from February 21, 1992 to March 31, 1996. On March 31, 1996 petitioner was denied the work. Thus, according to the petitioner on the said date, petitioner service was terminated. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute before Deputy Labour Commissioner. Consequently a reference was made by Deputy Labour Commissioner to the Prescribed Authority to decide whether the termination of the service of Sri Pankaj Gupta, son of late M.P. Gupta from March 31, 1996 was justified and legal and if not whether the employee was entitled for the compensation and from which date. Notices were issued to the petitioner as well as to the respondents No. 2 and 3. Written statements were filed, evidences were adduced and thereafter, the witnesses were examined On consideration of entire facts, Prescribed Authority held that the petitioner was not the employee of the respondents No. 2 and 3 and there was no relationship of employer and employee. It has been held that the petitioner was employed through a contract and in the labour register he was shown as daily wager. It has been further held that the petitioner has not been appointed by the respondents No. 2 and 3 in accordance to the procedure contemplated for the appointment of the employee and the petitioner was not able to show any document that he was appointed by the respondents No. 2 and 3. In this view of the matter, it has been held that the denial of work to the petitioner was justified, since the employer has a right to remove daily wager and the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the person employed through a contract is also to be treated as employee and thus, petitioner was the employee of the respondents No. 2 and 3. He further submitted mat the petitioner worked with the respondents No. 2 and 3 during the period February 21, 1992 to March 31, 1996 and thus, the petitioner services could not be terminated in violation of Section 6-N of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was not able to show that he was appointed on any post by the respondents No. 2 and 3 and was the regular employee of the respondents No. 2 and 3. He further submitted that the labour register shows the petitioner as daily wager and his service started in the morning and ended with the end of the day and has no legal right of regularization. He submitted that even if he has worked for more than 240 days in a year, he has no right of regularization.