CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. PANDHARI BHAURAOJI MASKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the 3rd Labour Court, Nagpur on 27.1.2003 partly allowing the application filed by the respondent on.1 under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and directing the petitioner to pay the amount of R.25900/- to the respondent no.1 towards the salary for the period from 30.7.1995 to 30.6.1998. The respondent no.1 had filed an application under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, Nagpur. It was the case of the respondent no.1 that he was working as a Pump Operator and Watchman with the petitioner from 7.3.1983 on monthly wages of Rs. 700/-. The respondent no.1 pleaded that the petitioner had not made payment of salary to the respondent no.1 from July 1995 till the date of his termination in the year 1998. The respondent no.1 had therefore, claimed total salary of Rs.33600/- with 18% interest thereon.

(2.) THE petitioner Zilla Parishad, filed the reply and denied the claim of the respondent no.1. It was denied that there was an employer and employee relationship between the parties. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 was never appointed by the petitioner and he never worked with the petitioner at any point of time. According to the petitioner there was no question of paying any amount to the respondent no.1 as there was no relationship between the parties. The respondent no.1 entered into the witness box and tendered evidence. On an appreciation of the evidence tendered by the respondent no.1, the Labour Court, Nagpur by the impugned order dated 27.1.2003 partly allowed the application filed by the respondent no.1 and directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.25900/ - to the applicant. The said order is impugned by the instant writ petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the impugned order dated 27.1.2003 along with the pleadings of the parties and the evidence of the respondent no.1. From a perusal of the same, it is clear that the Labour Court committed an error in holding that the petitioner was liable to pay an amount of Rs.25900/- to the respondent no.1 towards salary for the period from 30.7.1995 to 30.6.1998. The Labour Court failed to consider that all the documents produced by the respondent no.1 on record were signed by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and none of the documents were ever signed by the officers of the Zilla Parishad. The communications issued by the respondent no.1 to the Zilla Parishad would not be of any assistance to the case of the respondent no.1 as they were not the communications from the Zilla Parishad showing that the respondent no.1 was their employee. The documents at serial no.18 and 19, the two exercise books, were also signed by the Sarpanch of the village. These documents therefore, did not show that the respondent no.1 was an employee of the Zilla Parishad. There was no seal of the Zilla Parishad on any of the documents on exhibit 21 and 22, and those were applications, written by respondent no.1 to the petitioner. Some document was produced by the respondent no.1 to show that that the scheme of water supply was not transferred to the Gram Panchayat of village Barfa till the year 1998. This document however could not show that the scheme of water supply was with the Zilla Parishad and indeed the respondent no.1 was appointed by the Zilla Parishad as its employee.