KCP LIMITED SUGAR FACTORY VUYYURU Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common questions arise for consideration in all these four matters they are disposed of by this common judgment. Claiming to be the workmen of the petitioner, second respondent in all these matters filed petitions under Sec.2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the first respondent- Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guntur stating that their services were illegally terminated by the petitioner. The petitioner has taken the stand that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and therefore, the second respondent cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the first respondent.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction, as the 2nd respondent is not a workman of the petitioner and there is no relationship of employer and employee as the 2nd respondent never worked in the factory of the petitioner. He further submitted that not a scrap of paper is filed before the Labour Court to show that the 2nd respondent ever worked as an employee of the petitioner and no orders, either terminating or discharging the services of the second respondent were filed before the Labour Court and in the absence of any evidence whatsoever, to show that the 2nd respondent was an employee of the petitioner, the Labour Court cannot proceed any further under Sec.2-A of the Act.

(3.) In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Swapan vs. 1st Labour Court wherein it was held that in order to attract Sec.2 A there must be an action of employer against the workman. But if the dispute is whether there was any relationship of employer and workman between them, such a dispute cannot be the subject-matter of reference under Sec.2-A. The learned Counsel further contended relying upon Chemicals & Fibres of India Ltd. vs. D.G. Bhoir that the intention of the legislature was that an individual workman who was discharged, dismissed or retrenched or whose services were otherwise terminated should be given relief without its being necessary for the relationship between the employer and the whole body of employees being attracted to that dispute becoming a generalised one between labour on the one hand and the employer on the other, but when the question as to whether the petitioner before the Labour Court is an employee or not is raised, it is necessary for the Labour Court to go into the question as a preliminary point.