A K PATEL Vs. INDIAN HOTELS CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Labour Court by its two judgments dated 23rd July, 1999, came to the conclusion that the complaints filed before it by the two petitioners before the Court under the Maharashtra Recognition of trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, were not maintainable on the ground that neither of the two petitioners is a workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of industrial DISPUTES ACT, 1947 and consequently, not an employee within the meaning of the former Act. The orders have been called into question in these proceedings under Article 226. The evidence which has been recorded in the two complaints is common and the facts are similar. The two petitions have been heard together and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this judgment bearing in mind when the need arises, the factual distinction, such as there may be, between the two cases.

(2.) In Writ Petition 57 of 2002, the petitioner is an Engineer with a degree of Bachelor of Engineering in the Mechanical Branch. The petitioner initially worked in an industrial establishment at Thane where he had five years' experience. Thereafter, he was appointed as a Senior Engineer in the Indian hotels Company Ltd. , the respondent to these proceedings. He was confirmed in service after the successful completion of the period of probation. The petitioner in companion Writ Petition 58 of 2002 was initially appointed on 26th september, 1978 as trainee Engineer and the petitioner held a Diploma in engineering. Upon the completion of his training, the respondent appointed him as an Engineering Assistant on 24th October, 1980. He too, was confirmed in service. The services of the two petitioners were dispensed with by a letter dated 31st May, 1988 in pursuance of a clause in the contract of appointment and on the ground that the management had lost confidence. There appears to have been an allegation of bribery involving the two petitioners and it is alleged that a bribe had been accepted from one of the contractors who was carrying on work assigned by the respondent in connection with the renovation of the Hotel.

(3.) The orders of termination were challenged before the Labour Court in complaints under Item (1) (a) , (b) , (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Act. The complaints were initially dismissed on the ground of limitation. Subsequently, it is common ground, in writ proceedings before this Court, the delay was condoned and the Labour Court was directed to dispose of the complaints on merits. Pursuant thereto, evidence was recorded before the Labour Court which resulted in the final order dismissing the complaints. That order has been affirmed in revision.