CENTRAL GROUP Vs. NARAYAN GANGARAM PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra court appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 9/6/2004 thereby rejecting Writ Petition No. 1041 of 2004. The writ petition was filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution so as to challenge the award dated 18/11/2002 passed by the Fourth Labour Court at Thane in Application (IDA) No. 208 of 1999 filed under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the I.D. Act).

(2.) THE respondent -workman had approached the Labour Court on or about 23/4/1999 by filing Application (IDA) No. 208 of 1999 and claimed the recovery of legal dues, namely, (a) overtime for the year 1990 to 1998, for four hours extra duty on every day, (b) 21 days leave pay for every year of service from 1990 to 1998 and (c) bonus at the rate of 8.33% for the period from 1990 to 1998. It appears around the same time the workman also filed Complaint (ULP) No. 231 of 1999 challenging the termination of service with effect from 25/2/1999 and the complaint was filed under Section 28 read with Item 1 of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The employer, on receipt of the notice from the Labour Court in both the cases, appeared and opposed the claim contending that (a) the workman was never employed by the appellant No. 1 -Central Group, (b) though appellant Nos. 2 to 5 owned 18 powerlooms, none of the appellants were running the same and the powerlooms were rented out to one Shri Kantilal Rajput by way of an agreement, (c) the shed in which the powerlooms were installed was demolished by the Bhiwandi Nijampur Municipal Council for widening of the road on 21/11/1998 and as there was no employer -employee relationship between the workman and the appellants, the claim for recovery of statutory dues or the complaint for reinstatement was not maintainable. It is also clear from the record that Complaint (ULP) No. 231 of 1999 came to be withdrawn subsequently by the workman. However, he pursued the application for recovery of statutory dues. The workman examined himself, whereas on behalf of the appellants, Shri Lalit Chunilal Jain was examined. The Labour Court by its judgment and order dated 18/11/2002 held that it had the jurisdiction to decide the issue of employer -employee relationship between the parties and it allowed the application by directing the appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 4,97,064/ -towards overtime wages, leave wages and bonus. As noted earlier, the appellants challenge to the said order dated 18/11/2002 failed before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1041 of 2004.

(3.) MR . Oak the learned Counsel for the appellants reiterated his arguments advanced before the learned Single Judge and emphasised that the Labour Court did not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue of employer -employee relationship in an application filed under Section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act. In support of this sole ground, he has relied upon the decisions in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ganesh Razak and Anr. : (1995)ILLJ395SC and Tara and Ors. v. Director, Social Welfare and Ors. : AIR1999SC1508 .