GAJENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of (he Award dated 15.10.1996 rendered by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Ranchi in Reference Case No. 2 of 1990. By the said impugned Award the Presiding Officer held that the concerned workman is not a workman under the definition of I.D. Act. of the management of HEC, Ltd, and it is not an industrial dispute between the concerned man and management and that the reference is bad in law.

(2.) THE petitioner 'scase is that he was appointed as an Assistant Grade -Ill by the management of M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as the H.E.C.) and was posted at Turn Key Project Division of the HEC. The petitioner became permanent after working continuously for one year. The job of the petitioner was perennial in nature. According to him. from the very beginning he was not paid the admissible scale of pay. When the petitioner demanded, the same was refused by the management of the HEC. Petitioner had then filed a writ application in Patna High Court, Ranchi bench as then was being C.W.J.C. No. 434 1986(R). According to him since thereafter, the management became biased and on 1.4.1986 terminated his service without any notice. The petitioner then filed M.J. Case No. 1/77 before the Labour Court, Ranchi for a direction to the H.E.C. management to pay difference of his wages from 20.7.1982 to 31.3.1986. That petition was allowed on 14.2.1988. The management then Implemented the aforesaid order but only part payment was made. According to petitioner he was given pay scale of Rs. 481 -751 which was revised to Rs. 750 -1067 w.e.S. 1.1.1986 and thereafter again revised to Rs. 1141 -1705. According to Binod Kumar Report the petitioner was deemed to have been promoted after seven years to Assistant Grade -11. But in the meanwhile he was terminated on 31.3.1986 by a verbal order in violation of Sec.25 -F of the Industrial Dispute Act (thereafter to be referred as the I.D, Act), No notice of termination was served, nor the notice pay was given to him as required under the provisions of I.D. Act.

(3.) THE said reference was registered as Reference Case No, 2 of 1990. The petitioner as well as the respondent H.E.C. management appeared and filed their respective written statements. The main contention of the H -E.C., inter alia, was that the petitioner was not an employee of the HEC. According to the respondents, the HEC entered into a contract with M/s. Adibasi Engineering Audoyogic Sahyog Samitti (hereinafter to be referred as Samitti) for supply of labour and the petitioner was engaged by the said Samitti. HEC never paid any salary to the petitioner at any point of time save and except discharging its the duties as provided under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. The petitioner was not appointed by the H.E.C. and there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the HEC. Since the services of the petitioner were not required after 31.3.1986 he was accordingly informed through the contractor.