BABU LAL JANGID Vs. ASSISTANT ENGINEER PUBLIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the appellant.

(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 2.5.2007 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the award of the Labour Court dated 20.2.2002, has been dismissed. A reference was made to the learned Labour Court by the appropriate Government on the question, whether removal of the appellant by Assistant Engineer, PHED, Lalsot, District Dausa vide order dated 6.6.1995 was legal and valid and if not what relief the workman was entitled to.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Labour Court had not correctly appreciated the evidence. It was argued that the specific assertion made by the appellant that he was initially engaged on 15.3.1994 and was removed on 6.6.1995, was not specifically denied. It was wrongly held that the appellant was engaged on contract basis. Learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the State amendment to the definition of 'workman' as contained in Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act and argued that an employee, even if engaged through contractor, has to be treated as a workman. He argued that the contention of the respondent that the appellant was engaged on contract basis was untenable. There was sufficient evidence before the Labour Court to hold that the appellant continuously worked from the date of initial appointment on 15.3.1994 till he was removed on 6.6.1995. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. : (2003)IIILLJ215SC and argued that the unfair labour practise adopted by the management in engaging the workmen through contractor has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. It was argued that even the workman engaged on contract basis is workman because of the aforesaid State amendment. Therefore, the learned Labour Court erred in law in not treating the appellant as employee of the respondent. It further erred in law in holding that the workman had not worked for more than 240 days in the calender year immediately preceding the date on which the appellant was retrenched. It was also argued that the learned Single Judge has also committed an error in not correctly appreciating all the arguments and dismissing the writ petition only on the premise that this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution cannot re -appreciate the evidence so as to arrive at another conclusion.