EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ENVIRONMENTAL Vs. GOKARNAPRASAD DAMODHAR DUBEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of these six Writ Petitions are similar and, therefore, the Petitions are decided by common Judgment. The Writ Petitions arise out of the Complaints filed by the respondent No. 1 in these petitions before the Labour Court, Nagpur under section 28 read with section 7 and item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of trade Unions and Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1971 ). The petitioners challenged the Judgments and Orders of the Labour Court by filing Revision Applications before the Industrial Court at Nagpur. The Industrial Court at Nagpur dismissed the said Revision Applications preferred by the petitioners by a common Judgment and Order. The said Judgments and Orders are impugned in these petitions. For the sake of convenience the facts in Writ Petition No. 10/95 are considered for the purpose of the Judgment.

(2.) IT is the case of the respondent No. 1 that the State Government constructed a Dam on the River Wena in the year 1966-67. The respondent No. 1 further stated, that after the completion of the construction of the said Dam, the Irrigation Department of the State has handed over the scheme to the Environmental Engineering division of the State of maharashtra for the purpose of making necessary arrangements for supply of water through the said Dam for commercial as well as non-commercial purpose. Accordingly, the petitioner constructed a Pump House and Fitter Plant and started supplying water to various areas. The respondent No. 1 further stated that for the purpose of carrying out the activities as aforesaid, the petitioner had established a Department/division at Nagpur and employed about 65 to 70 employees including chowkidars/security Guards. The work assigned to the said employees was of permanent nature and the work of Security Guards/chowkidars was part and parcel of the work of the activities of the petitioner. It is contended by the respondent No. 1 that in the year 1982, the petitioner transferred all the workmen employed for Security Arrangements of the project and appointed 7 Security Guards including respondent No. 1 through respondent No. 2 herein who is running a Supply Agency of security Guards. The respondent No. 1 further contended that the sole intention of appointing these workmen through the respondent No. 2 was to get rid of Labour Laws applicable to the workmen and to deprive the workmen of the advantages of the permanency in service. The respondent No. 1 alleged that the Security Guards employed through respondent No. 2 performed their duties under the supervision and control of the petitioner through a Jr. Engineer and the respondent No. 2 never attended the Industrial Establishment of the petitioner. It is, thus, a specific case of the respondent No. 1 that he along with other Security guards (respondent No. 1 in other Petitions) were appointed by the petitioner through the Agency of respondent No. 2 and for all purposes the respondent No. 1 and other Security Guards are the employees of the petitioner. The duty chart of the Security Guards is prepared and fixed by the petitioner. Moreover, the respondent No. 1 was a Member of the general Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance and the contribution is deducted at source. Therefore, the contention of the respondent No. 1 is that his Principal Employer was the petitioner and not the respondent No. 2. A specific case was made out in the Complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 that the Establishment of the petitioner was covered under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1946) and, therefore, in view of the provisions of the said Act of 1946 the petitioner was employer and the respondent No. 1 was an employee. The respondent No. 1 stated that he was required to file the Complaint before the Labour Court as the Jr. Engineer of the petitioner informed the respondent No. 1 that his services were no longer required and that he should not attend the duty from 1st May, 1986 onwards. The respondent No. 1 alleged in the Complaint that the petitioner has not complied with section 25f of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1947) and, therefore, the petitioner engaged in Unfair Labour Practices as contemplated by item No. 1 of Schedule IV of the said Act of 1971. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 prayed for relief of reinstatement with backwages and continuity in service.

(3.) THE petitioner filed reply to the Complaint filed by the respondent no. 1. The petitioner denied that after completion of the construction of the Dam, the Irrigation Department of the State Government has handed over the Scheme to the Environmental Engineering Division. However, it was admitted that the petitioner has constructed the Pump House for supply of water and the petitioner is supplying water to various areas. The petitioner also admitted that the Security Guards employed by the respondent No. 2 had to perform their duties as per the directions given by the petitioner through his Jr. Engineer. However, it was contended that the agency of the respondent No. 2 was exercising its control through his authorised Supervisors and Representatives on the Security Guards and wages were paid by the respondent No. 2 to all the Security Guards. It was contended that the Security Guards were directly under control of respondent No. 2. The petitioner specifically contended that there was no relationship of Master and Servant between him and the respondent no. 1. It is further contended that the Master and Servant Relationship exists between the respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 1. The petitioner denied that the respondent No. 1 was a Government Servant. The petitioner pointed out that since the Agreement between him and the respondent No. 2 for providing Security Guards was to expire on 31st march, 1986, it was informed that the petitioner was not intending to extend the period of the Agreement. The petitioner prayed for dismissal of the Complaints.