BALWINDER KUMAR Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner served as Guest House Attendant with the Sports Authority of India for 8 years. His services were done away with, with effect from 12.09.2006 without notice or charge-sheet or enquiry or payment of retrenchment compensation. Against illegal termination, the workman raised a dispute with the management, which came to be registered before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala as Ref. No.60/2007.

(2.) The defence of the Sports Authority of India was one of complete denial of employment relationship. Management asserted that he was not their employee and no salary had been paid by Sports Authority of India to him. The written statement filed by the management before the Industrial Tribunal, if believed to be true, could put an end to the matter against the petitioner due to total denial of the case. The Management has also filed a written statement in the writ proceedings accusing the petitioner of "Suppressio veri, expressio falsi" [A suppression of truth is equivalent to a lie] since the petitioner has withheld the fact that he was employed through a Labour Agency named 'Ex-Serviceman Security Services' with an office running at Shop No.5, Leela Bhawan Market, Patiala. A copy of Tender Job Contract for skilled/un-skilled labourers issued to Lt. Col. Parminder Singh, Director, Ex-Serviceman Security Services by the Sports Authority of India dated 29.08.2003 has been placed at Annex R-2/1 for the first time. They have attached a letter dated 10.03.2004 offering jobs on contract basis to Lt. Col. Parminder Singh of which one of the areas covered is for the watch and ward of New Guest House of the SAI. The period of contract is from 03.03.2004 to 30.04.2004 carrying the remarks that minimum one person is to be deployed for the work. No other contract even before or thereafter has been shown or placed on record of the labour court or in the instant petition. Apart from the fact that such evidence cannot be entertained for the first time in writ proceedings, which have not been set up as defence by the management before the Industrial Tribunal, the fact remains that there was evidence of MW-1 Avinash Kumar, LDC, in the respondent - authority, who in his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief has struck to the stand that the petitioner was never employed by the management nor any salary ever paid to him. When subjected to cross-examination, which the Industrial Tribunal called an important piece of evidence to establish; whether the workman was working for the management or not, admitted as correct that respondent - management has its own Guest House. He admitted that the workman/claimant was working in the Guest House of the respondent - management. [This was crucial turning point from the adamant denial mode adopted in the pleadings]. Witness volunteered that petitioner Balwinder Kumar had come through a Labour Agency, but he failed to disclose the name of the Agency. MW-1 admitted as correct that Mark-F is the cheque issued by his department parting in favour of the workman a sum of Rs. 1732/-. The cheque is dated 31.03.2006. Management had put money into the account of Balwinder Kumar through cheque which was issued by R.C.Trivedi, Drawing & Disbursing Officer, SAI NS NIS, Patiala. Mark-D was another document indicating that the stand of the management was false. This document was signed by one K.K.Gudiala, P.A. to R.D. by which Balwinder Kumar, Guest House Attendant was sent to Delhi to deliver some important documents to ED (Teams) for onward transmission to the Ministry at New Delhi.

(3.) Employment through Labour Agency was ruled out by the Industrial Tribunal on finding sufficient evidence to connect the management with Balwinder Kumar for a long period from 1988 to 2006. The Tribunal concluded that this evidence is sufficient to prove that no middleman was employed by the management to run the Guest House and the workman was on the rolls of the management. Once the connection was established, then the law would follow in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as compliance was not done. There was violation of Section 25-F and therefore, the termination was illegal.