ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. P O CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIPUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the award dated November 28, 2007 (Annexure-P-8), passed by the Central government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court-II, Rajendra Bhawan, Rajendra Place, new Delhi. On reference being made by the central Government, the Labour Court has proceeded to decide the reference in favour of the workman holding him entitled to reinstatement with 25% back wages.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that the finding recorded by the Labour Court that the workman has completed 240 days and therefore, would be entitled to the protection of provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial disputes Act pertains to the period May, 1999 to March, 2000. The workman was appointed from May, 1999 to July, 1999, thereafter, from september, 1999 to May, 2000, and thereafter, w. e. f. August 10, 2000 till April 30, 2003, the workman worked with Rana Security Services, rohtak, which was granted the contract by the petitioner to provide casual labour. He resigned from the services of Rana Security Services, rohtak, and thereafter, submitted a form for withdrawal of the Provident Fund and pensionary benefits on September 19, 2003 and the same was processed. After his resignation from Rana Security Services on April 30, 2003, the workman was again employed with the petitioner firm from June, 2003 to July, 2003 as a Water Carrier as those were summer days and it was for that specified period that his appointment was made. Thereafter, no further appointment was given to the workman on completion of his tenure. The workman raised a dispute before the authorities and the matter was thereafter referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. He contends that the reference pertains to the period June, 2003 to July, 2003, when his services were terminated. The period therefore relevant for taking into consideration continuous service would be 12 months preceding the date of his termination. As per the allegations of the workman, his services were terminated in July, 2003, and therefore, the relevant period would be from August, 2002 to july, 2003. No finding with regard to the said period has been recorded by the Labour Court that the workman has completed more than 240 days in this period. What has been decided by the Labour Court is that the workman has completed 240 days of service during the period may, 1999 to March, 2000. This he contends is totally in violation of the provisions of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) ON the other hand, counsel for the respondent contends that the jurisdiction of this court would be barred as the award passed in favour of the workman was by the Central government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour court-II, New Delhi, and therefore, High Court of Delhi would have the jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. He further submits that the workman had all through been working with the petitioner. He admits that he had worked with the petitioner and thereafter with Rana security Services till his resignation on April 30, 2003. He contends that the workman would be the employee of principal employer as he had no option but to join Rana Security Services when the contract of supply of casual labour was assigned to the said agency. He further contends that a finding has been recorded by the labour Court that the workman has worked from May, 1999 to March, 2000 with the petitioner and thereafter for four years with rana Security Services. He contends that therefore the award passed by the Labour Court needs to be upheld.