RAJ PAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of seven identical writ petitions filed by the workmen against similar awards passed by the learned Labour Court, thereby deciding the reference in favour of respondent no.2-management and against the petitioners-workmen. The particulars of all the seven cases are as follows :-

(2.) To unravel the short controversy involved between the parties, brief narration of essential facts would be required. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he was employed by respondent no.2 as Helper with effect from 6.6.1986. His services came to be terminated on 5.2.2001. Demand notice was submitted on 12.2.2001. Conciliation proceedings failed and thereafter appropriate government referred the industrial dispute to the learned Labour Court for its adjudication. Petitioner-workman filed his claim statement Annexure P-1. Respondent no.3 (Contractor) filed his written statement vide Annexure P-2. Respondent no.2 also filed its written statement before the learned Labour Court vide Annexure P-3 and pursuant thereto, petitioner workman filed his replication vide Annexure P-4. On completion of pleadings, parties led their respective evidence before the learned Labour Court. After hearing both the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that since the petitioner-workman failed to establish his relation of master and servant with respondent no.2, he was not entitled to the relief claimed and the reference was accordingly decided against the workman. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) Notice of motion was issued and respondents were served. Respondent no.2 has filed its written statement, whereas learned counsel for respondent no.3 appeared on 22.7.2010 and on 29.10.2010, however, thereafter nobody appeared on behalf of respondent no.3, except on 11.3.2011.