VARSED DETECTIVE AND SECURITY SERVICE (P) LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-I, GURGAON AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the Award dated 24.05.2014 (Annexure P-6) whereby, the Labour Court, Gurgaon has directed reinstatement of respondent no. 2-workman with full back wages from 02.05.2008 as per the ex parte award against the petitionermanagement. Counsel for the petitioner has solely argued that the burden of proof to prove the fact that the workman had worked for 240 days was upon him and he failed to discharge the said burden of proof and in such circumstances, the Labour Court was not justified in directing reinstatement.

(2.) A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that vide the demand notice dated 20.08.2008 (Annexure P-1), the workman took the plea that he had been appointed in March, 2002 on the post of Security Supervisor and was drawing salary of Rs.5,500/- per month and he was appointed with the petitioner at M/s. Tilak Export, Phase I, Okhla, Delhi initially and thereafter was transferred to respondent no. 3-company namely M/s. Rico Auto Industries Ltd. His services were terminated illegally on 02.05.2008 without following the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act'). The matter was referred to the Labour Court as to whether the workman was an employee of respondent no. 3-company or of the petitioner and the relief which he was entitled to.

(3.) In his claim statement (Annexure P-3), the period of service was mentioned and the fact that the workman was unemployed. In the written statement filed by the respondent no. 3-company, it was specifically alleged that the workman was engaged by the petitionercontractor herein and the demand notice and the reference could be maintainable against the said contractor only, who was the real employer.