ABHIJIT GUHA Vs. MADHURI RANJAN SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Udgata, learned advocate appears on behalf of the firm. He submits, his client had never employed opposite party no.1. She used to roll Bidi in her house under his client's contractor. There was no master servant relationship between his client and said opposite party.

(2.) Impugned order dtd. 11/3/2011 was made on the application (Misc. Case no.22 of 2007) under sec. 33-C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Not only the application was misconceived since, opposite party no.1 could not have been said to be entitled to anything from his client but, by impugned order the Labour Court purported to adjudicate on the controversy regarding relationship between the parties, to hold retrenchment and thereupon direct payment.

(3.) He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in U.P. Elec. Supply Co. v. R. K. Shukla, reported in AIR 1970 SC 237, paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 to submit that there can be no order for awarding retrenchment compensation without finding that there was retrenchment and compensation was payable.