PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the award/order dated 24.7.2014, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, by which the reference has been decided against him. In short, the petitioner is alleged to have been appointed by respondent No. 2 on the post of Lab Attendant on 19.8.2002. His services were terminated on 14.2.2005. He served a demand notice under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") on 4.3.2005. The Labour Court rejected the reference vide its award dated 12.09.2011 which was challenged by the petitioner by way of CWP No. 16600 of 2011 which was allowed on 20.2.2014 and the matter was remanded back to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication after re-examining the evidence produced by the parties. The Labour Court again decided the reference against the workman-petitioner on 24.07.2014.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Court has wrongly decided that the petitioner was the employee of a contractor. It is also submitted that even if it is presumed, for the sake of arguments, though not admitted, that he was the employee of the contractor, the contractor has to be a licensed contractor.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and examining the record, I have found that there is ample evidence, led by respondent No. 2, that the petitioner was the employee of the contractor because in his evidence appearing as MW 2, Sandeep Yadav, Assistant, HR Department of M/s. Shiva Industrial Service, Rewari, has categorically stated as under:-