RAM SARUP Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the award of the presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, whereby the reference made to it under Section 10 (l) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act"), was answered against the petitioner (workman) and in favour of the management.

(2.) ACCORDING to the statement of the claim filed before the Labour Court, the workman alleged that he had put in three years and one months' service as a watchman with Markfed Modern Rice Mills, Rajpura (hereinafter called, "the management"), and that his services had been wrongly terminated without any notice, charge-sheet, enquiry or compensation. He claimed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages. The management resisted the claim of the workman and the stand taken by it was that he was never its employee. What was pleaded was that the workman had been employed through a contractor and being his employee there was no relationship of master and servant between the parties.

(3.) THE only argument advanced by Shri Palli in support of the petition is that the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court was without any evidence and is, therefore, perverse which is liable to be set aside in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.