JOGI INDUSTRIES Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s. Jogi Industries has filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, against the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar (respondent No. 1), and Chur Ram (respondent No. 2), praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for the quashment of the impugned award dated 23. 12. 1994 passed by respondent No. 1 by giving directions to it to reinstate respondent No. 2 into service by giving him the benefit of half of the wage. , with effect from 25. 8. 1989, i. e. the date of the demand notice.

(2.) THE case set up by the petitioner firm is that it never employed respondent No. 2 Chur Ram as its servant and as such there does not exist say relationship of master and servant. However, on 25. 8. 1989 respondent No. 2 issued a demand notice upon it alleging that his services were illegally terminated on 4. 8. 1989 without notice, charge-sheet or enquiry or compensation in lieu of retrenchment. Respondent No. 2 also alleged that his service had been terminated on account of trade union activities. The petitioner-Firm replied to the said demand notice by denying the relationship of master and servant between it and respondent No. 2. In spite of the conciliation proceedings, the matter could not be reconciled and as a result of that the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Jalandhar, for determination. The parties put pleadings in the shape of the statement of claim and written statement. It was specifically pleaded by the petitioner-firm that there did not exist any relationship of master and servant. In spite of the categorical denial by the petitioner, respondent No. 1 passed the award dated 23. 12. 1994 and ordered reinstatement of the workman (respondent No. 2) into service by giving him back wages to the extent of one-half with effect from 25. 8. 1989 and the award of the Labour court has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that respondent No. 1 has failed to consider the vital aspect and the statements of the witnesses that there did not exist any relationship of master and servant and that respondent No. 2 was never employed by the petitioner-firm. The conclusion drawn by the Labour Court are erroneous and are liable to be set aside in the present writ proceedings.

(3.) THE petitioner firm filed a rejoinder to the written statement filed by respondent No, 2 in which it reiterated the allegations made in the writ petition by denying those of the written statement.