SHARIFUDDIN ALIAS BANWARI Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for quashing the Award dated 2-11-1998, published on 19-2-1999, passed by the Labour Court, UP. , Agra (respondent No. 1) in Adjudication Case No. 110 of 1988. Copy of the said Award has been filed as annexure-7 to the writ petition. It appears that Reference under section 4k of the up. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was made to the labour Court to the effect as to whether the termination of services of the petitioner (workman) on the post of Cook on 15-3-1986 was proper and/or legal, and if not, to what relief the petitioner (workman) was entitled.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner before the Labour court was that he was employed by the respondent no. 2 on regular basis on the post of Cook since 1980; and that his service were terminated without any. notice etc. on 15-3-1986; and that the provisions regarding retrenchment were not complied with.

(3.) THE case of the respondent No. 2 was that no person by the name of Sharifuddin (petitioner), so called workman, was ever employed as a Cook by the respondent No. 2; and that there was no kitchen in the Hotel of the respondent No. 2, and as such, there was no necessity of any Cook; and that there was no relationship of employer and workman between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner; and that there was no provision/facility for providing lunch/dinner/snacks to the customers of the Hotel; and that no food or other eatables were cooked in the Hotel; and that the petitioner was a Cool; who worked on contract (Theka) basis for different parties as and when occasion arose; and that the engagement of the petitioner was synonymous to private Halwai, who were engaged for marriage etc. ; and that similarly, the petitioner was engaged only when any big tourist group wanted particular type of vegetables or for Barats and other parties, and the same was done on behalf of the customer; and that the payments were made directly by the customer to the petitioner. It further appears that the parties led evidence before the Labour Court in support of their respective cases.