MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, NILOKHERI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of CWP No.7056 of 2012 titled as Municipal Committee, Nilokheri Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & another, CWP No.7391 of 2012 titled as Municipal Committee, Nilokheri Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & another, CWP No.7419 of 2012 titled as Municipal Committee, Nilokheri Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & another, CWP No.7426 of 2012 titled as Municipal Committee, Nilokheri Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & another, CWP No.7430 of 2012 titled as Municipal Committee, Nilokheri Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & another, CWP No.7432 of 2012 titled as Municipal Committee, Nilokheri Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & another, CWP No.7448 of 2012 titled as Municipal Committee, Nilokheri Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & another, CWP No.9110 of 2012 titled as Municipal Committee, Nilokheri Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & another, CWP No.9121 of 2012 titled as Municipal Committee, Nilokheri Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & another, CWP No.9139 of 2012 titled as Municipal Committee, Nilokheri Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & another, CWP No.9149 of 2012 titled as Municipal Committee, Nilokheri Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & another, CWP No.9150 of 2012 titled as Municipal Committee, Nilokheri Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & another, CWP No.9151 of 2012 titled as Municipal Committee, Nilokheri Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & another and CWP No.9211 of 2012 titled as Municipal Committee, Nilokheri Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & another, as identical issue is involved in these petitions.

(2.) Municipal Committee, Nilokheri has laid a challenge in these connected petitions to 14 separate awards passed by the Industrial Tribunalcum-Labour Court, Panipat carrying even date i.e. 23.12.2010, whereby the reference has been answered in favour of the workmen and they have been held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. Further challenge in each of these petitions is to the order dated 14.12.2011 wherein the prayer made by the petitioner/Committee for setting aside the ex parte award has been declined.

(3.) Mr. Sachin Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Committee would submit that the work of sanitation of the town of Nilokheri was allotted to a Contractor, namely, Kadam Singh and the workmen/private respondents in these petitions were in turn outsourced by the contractor. On the strength of such submission, it has been argued that the workmen having never been engaged by the Committee, the question of compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') would not arise. It has further been contended that the labour Court has erred in recording a finding that the workmen had served for the period March, 2003 to 31.12.2003 in the absence of any relevant material having been adduced on record. Counsel argues that the onus was on the workmen to have produced the appointment letter to substantiate the claim of being an employee of the petitioner/committee and in the absence of such cogent evidence an ex parte award has been passed only on the basis of a solitary statement furnished by the workmen and as such, the impugned award cannot sustain. Further contention raised by counsel is that even the relief of reinstatement could not have been granted by the labour Court as daily wagers or casual workers have no right to hold the post.