KRANTIKARI KAMGAR UNION Vs. KUONI TRAVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petition challenges Award dtd. 25/11/2021 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai answering Reference (IT) No.05 of 2010 in the negative. The Reference was with regard to claim for permanency, payment of difference of wages and for reinstatement.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Pai, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Union and Mr. D'souza the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1-Principal Employer. I have gone through the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal in the impugned Award. I have also perused the records of the case.

(3.) Apart from the fact that there is failure on the part of the Petitioner-Union to prove the six tests prescribed by the Apex Court in its judgment in Balwantrai Saluja & Anr. vs. Air India Ltd. & Ors [[(2014) 9 SCC 407]]. there appears to conduct on the part of the members of the Petitioner- Union clearly indicating that their real employer was Respondent No.2-Contractor. The resignations were tendered by the members of the Petitioner-Union to the Contractor and not to the Principal Employer. They were issued cheques by the Contractor while accepting resignation which they have encashed. They also submitted Provident Fund (PF) forms to Respondent No.2-Contractor and received the PF dues. They have subsequently turned around and raised the claim of being direct workers of Respondent No.1-Principal Employer. In my view, the conduct exhibited by the members of the Petitioner-Union at the time of cessation of their services clearly negatives their contention that Respondent No.1 was their real employer.