GHISA KHAB Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in the instant writ application, has challenged the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 1st May, 2009 passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer (for short, 'learned Labour Court') in L.C.R. Case Number 15 of 2005. Briefly, the essential material facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy raised are: That the petitioner/workman raised an industrial dispute assailing his verbal order of termination with effect from 1st April, 2003. It is pleaded case of the petitioner/workman that he discharged his duties with the establishment of the respondent/employer (Godrej Agrovate Ltd., Makupura Extension, Industrial Area, Makupura, Ajmer), with effect from 13th August, 2002 till 31st of March, 2003. As a result of failure of the conciliation proceedings, the appropriate Government made a reference. In response to the notice of the statement of claim, the respondent/employer/Godrej Agrovate Ltd., Ajmer, filed its reply stating therein that the petitioner/workman was never engaged/appointed by it rather the work of the establishment was carried out on contract basis through the contractors. It was further pleaded by the respondent/employer that the petitioner/workman did not work for 240 days in a calendar year and therefore, the claim was liable to be dismissed.

(2.) The learned Labour Court having recorded a finding that the petitioner/workman was not employed by the respondent/employer/Godrej Agrovate Ltd., Ajmer, rather was an employee of the contractor and therefore, concluded that there was no illegality in the action of the alleged verbal termination. The action was held to be legal and valid. However, the learned Labour Court allowed a sum of Rs. 3,110/- to be paid by Godrej Agrovate Ltd., Ajmer to the petitioner/workman as expenses incurred on account of medical expenses for injury suffered by the workman while working, in the month of December, 2002, within 3 months from the publication of the award, failing which the amount shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner/workman has assailed the impugned award dated 1st May, 2009 stating that since the direction for payment of wages was accorded in favour of the petitioner/workman for the months of October and November, 2002, though ex-parte, against Godrej Agrovate Ltd., Ajmer, which was not challenged, therefore, this fact by itself is sufficient to infer that the petitioner/workman was an employee of Godrej Agrovate Ltd., Ajmer. The learned counsel would further argue that the direction issued by the learned Labour Court for payment of an amount of Rs. 3,110/- on account of injury suffered by the petitioner/workman is yet another a fact to infer that the petitioner/workman was an employee of Godrej Agrovate Ltd., Ajmer. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner/workman placed reliance on the definition of 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947', for short). Further, an alternative argument has also been advanced to the effect that even if, the petitioner/workman did not complete 240 days, the respondent/employer terminated the services of the petitioner/workman while retaining junior persons though not named either in the statement of claim or in the memo of the writ application. The impugned award has also been assailed for the learned Labour Court failed to decide the issue of unfair labour practice.