Central Power Distribution Company Of A.P. Ltd., v. The Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 12408 of 2010 ORDER:
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in I.D.No.194 of 2005 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur (for short 'the Labour Court') are the petitioners herein. Respondent No.2 herein filed the said I.D challenging the retrenchment of his services by Respondent No.3 with effect from 1.05.2003 as illegal, invalid and inoperative. The case of the petitioner in the Labour Court was that he was employed as worker in the year 1991 by respondent No.3, but the wages were paid through respondent No.4, whereunder he worked up to 31.12.1997. The services of the petitioner were not regularized. The services of the petitioner were terminated orally on 01.01.1998 and on the request made to the authorities, the petitioner was taken into service on 24.02.2001 and was allowed to work up to 30.04.2003. With effect from 01.05.
2003 he was not permitted to continue in the work by the 3rd respondent. In those circumstances, he filed the said I.D stating that he is entitled for protection under Section 25 (F) (g) and Rules 78 and 79 of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short 'the Act') and that the retrenchment comes within the meaning of Section 2 (00) of the Act. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a counter stating that the petitioner was under the employment of respondent No.4 and he was never appointed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. He was not on the rolls as on 01.01.1998 and there was no master and servant relationship between them. He does not possess the requisite qualification and they were not violated any rules.
There is no order of appointment issued by respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Respondent No.4 remained ex parte before the lower Tribunal. The petitioner was examined as WW.1 and marked Exs. W.1 to
W.5. Respondents examined MW.1, but did not mark any documents. On the basis of the pleadings, the following points were framed for consideration:
1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief of setting aside the order of termination in question ?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of reinstatement into service with continuity, with full back-wages and all other attendant benefits ?
3) To what relief the petitioner is entitled ? The Labour Court noticed that Ex.W.1 indicates that the petitioner worked as shift operator on contract from 11.08.1991 to 31.12.1997 and it was also supported by Ex.W.2- Service Certificate, issued by Assistant Engineer (O), Siganamala. Ex.W.3 is the letter of rejection consequent to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.33224 of 1997. Ex.W.4 is the Service Certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer ( Operation), Singanamala to the effect that the petitioner worked from 24.02.2001 to 30.04.2003. MW.1, who examined on behalf of the respondents, denied his signature on Ex.W.4. He also stated that he does not know the contractor and he was not the immediate Supervisor to the petitioner. The Labour Court observed that in view of Exs. W.1 and W.2 and the ground mentioned in Ex.W.
3, the contention that the petitioner was not on the rolls as on 18.05.1997 does not hold good and it was also observed that in view of the other documentary evidence, it cannot be held that he does not possess the requisite qualification. Since the respondents had not considered the directions of this Court, the I.D was allowed and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner within 15 days from the date of publication of the Award, but without back wages.
The said Award of the Labour Court dt. 25.01.2010 is challenged by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 before the Labour Court in the present Writ Petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue before the Labour Court was not with regard to regularization of the services of the petitioner, but with regard to the termination of the services of the petitioner with effect from 01.05.2003. He further submits that the Labour Court passed the said Award without giving a finding with regard to relationship of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 therein. Learned counsel for second respondent herein submits that the issue before the Labour Court is with regard to continuation of the services of the petitioner from 01.05.2003 and not for regularization of the services.
In view of the dispute in the Labour Court, the Labour Court ought not to have observed with regard to the effect of Ex.W.3 in the dispute between the parties.
This Court directed the respondents in W.P.No.33224 of 1997 to consider the case of the petitioner and the petitioner's case was rejected under Ex.W.3. The remedy of the petitioner against the Order in Ex.W.3 is different. The present grievance of the petitioner is with regard to non continuation in the service with effect from 01.05.2003. In the circumstances, the Labour Court should have framed the appropriate issues as to whether there is any master and servant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and whether the petitioner is entitled to continue under the services of 4th respondent as on the alleged date of termination dt. 01.05.2003. No issue was framed and no finding was recorded in regard there to.
In the absence of such a finding, the Labour Court ought not to have passed the impugned order against Respondent No.3 when there is a serious dispute with regard to employment of the petitioner. In the circumstances, this Court is constrained to set aside the Order dt. 25.01.
from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, by giving an opportunity to both parties. Both parties are entitled to file additional evidence, if any, before Labour Court and contest the case.
With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case, shall stand closed.
_________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: 17.02.2016 eha
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WP No.12408 of 2010
Dt.17-02-2016 eha