MAHAVIR SHARMA Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 29.11.2013 (Annexure P/3) whereby the Labour Court, has declined the reference of the workman by holding that there is no relationship of employer and employee inter se the parties and the workman was an employee of the contractor. A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that the claim of the workman as per demand notice under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was that he was appointed by the Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") in Market Commit tee, Kaithal on 25.5.2009. He worked upto 8.10.2010, without any break. His services were terminated by the Board on 9.10.2010 without complying with the mandatory provisions of the Act in spite of the fact he had completed 240 days of service preceding his termination. Junior employees had been retained and accordingly, an industrial dispute was raised. The respondents in their reply specifically took the plea that the Chief Administrator of the Board had contracted a private agency and contract for the same purpose was given to M/s. Nav Bharat Security Service, Karnal vide memo dated 16.4.2009 and since 25.5.2009 to August, 2009 services of the workman were provided by the said contractor. Thereafter, new contract was given on 29.6.2009 and the workman remained under the supervision of M/s. Narwal Super Security, Panipat and thus he was never an employee of the Board and there was no direct link with the Board and payment was made to the contractor and there was no relationship of employer and employee.

(2.) In spite of the specific defence taken in the reply, the workman chose not to implead the contractor and in the claim petition sought reinstatement against the Board. Therefore, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that there was no relationship of employer and employee and had declined the reference.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the appointment was made by the Chief Administrator of the Board and the Labour Court was not justified in declining the reference.