CHET RAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing the impugned Award dated 3.9.2008 (Annexure P-2) wherein the reference has been answered against the petitioner-workman by the Labour Court on the ground that he was not an employee of M/s. M.D. Mitra Industries Ltd., but was an employee of the Contractor M/s. M.K. Universal.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner-workman contends that the petitioner was appointed as a security personnel with the respondent-Management on 26.7.1996. He continued as such with the respondent till 24.7.2004 when his services were illegally terminated by the respondent-Management. On a demand notice served on the respondent-Management, when the conciliation proceedings failed, reference was made to the Labour Court for adjudication of the case. The claim statement was submitted by the petitioner-workman which was responded to by way of reply by the Management wherein they had taken a specific stand that the petitioner- workman was an employee of M/s. M.K. Universal, who was paying wages to the workman and also maintaining the attendance register etc. This contention of the Management was accepted by the Labour Court on the basis of the evidence led by the parties leading to the answering of reference against the petitioner-workman. Counsel contends that M/s M.K. Universal did not possess a licence as mandated under Sec. 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1970 Act) for doing the work of security. The licence issued by the Government of Haryana to M/s. M.K. Universal, was initially issued on 26.4.2004 which provided as follows:-

(3.) Counsel, on this basis, contends that since there was no valid licence with M/s. M.K. Universal with regard to providing of security personnel, the findings as recorded by the Labour Court cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. His further contention is that as per the provisions of Sec. 12 of the 1970 Act, the petitioner would be, for all intents and purposes, treated as an employee of the principal employer i.e. M/s. Mitra Industries-respondent No.2.