BASANT LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the workman against the award of the Labour Court, rejecting his claim for reinstatement with back wages.

(2.) Claim of the workman was that he was appointed on 6.6.1993 by the management of Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda, the unit of the Punjab State Electricity Board through contractors as Helper in the Coal Handling Plant. His work was to clear the chocked coal from Jalies, clearing of pit and coal handling belt. His services were terminated vide verbal order dated 9.10.2000. He was drawing a salary of Rs. 1,854/- per month. His work was of perennial nature and was necessary for the working of the plant. He worked from the date of appointment till termination of his services continuously, though contractors remained changing. The place of work belonged to the principal employer and supervision and control was of the principal employer, but the principal employer engaged contractors to avoid responsibilities inder the labour laws. Contract between principal employer and the contractor was a sham contract. The workman was thus to be treated as direct employee of the principal employer. Termination of services of the workman was mala fide, unfair labour practice, violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') and Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. The claim was contested by respondent Nos. 3 to 6 who were respondents 1 to 4 before the Labour Court, the principal employer, by submitting that the principal employer never employed the workman. The contract for execution of a job having been given to a contractor, claim of the workman, if any, was against the contractor. The principal employer had no control whatsoever in engaging the workman. The work was not a regular work and depended upon receipt of coal rakes. No relationship of employer and employee existed between the workman and the principal employer.

(3.) The contractor took the plea that the workman abandoned the job of his own after working for some days on daily wages basis. The Labour Court framed the following issues :