M/S Hil Ltd v. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Iii And ORS
!
" ####
"$%& '( "&)*+*', -.
.
/ 0 .
1 1
!" ! #
! ! #
%
&&&&& 1
.
1.
Present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of award dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure P-16) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court-III, Faridabad (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum to respondent No.2-workman (Charan Singh).
2.
Briefly, respondent No.2-workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by the appropriate Government, while exercising its powers under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the 1947 Act'), to the Tribunal, for
adjudication, by making the following reference:- "Whether the appellant/employee is the employee of Hyderabad Industries Limited, Tehsil Ballabgarh, Faridabad or of the contractor?
In case it is held that he is the employee of Hyderabad Industries Limited, Tehsil Ballabgarh, Faridabad, whether the termination of his services was illegal? If the answer is in affirmative then to what consequential reliefs the employee is entitled to?"
3.
In the demand notice/claim statement, respondent No.2workman claimed that he was appointed by the petitioner-Company as Helper on 09.05.1988 and he worked in the Sorting Department of Cemented Asbestos Sheets, wherein his supervisor was Mr. Yaad Ram. He claimed that he worked continuously till 31.10.2003 and thereafter his services were terminated in an illegal and arbitrary manner without following the provisions of the 1947 Act.
4.
The aforesaid claim of respondent No.2-workman was contested by petitioner-Company on the plea that there was no relationship of employee and employer between them, and accordingly, no question arises with regard to termination of services of respondent No.2. It was the pleaded case of petitioner-Company that respondent No.2 was employed by the Contracting Company, namely Leladhar and Bros, Contractor, and he was working under its supervision and being paid wages by the said contractor.
5.
"
'
''( ( "
)
' +
, -
'
$ % ."
" ' //0
."
1
*) /0 ' /%
'(#
( 0- 0-8
''( '
%(9"
!
! " !# $ %#&% %'
(''&
&''')* + , - . ! ! . / %#01
! ! !
. 2 3 %5( !
! ,) 6
7 ('(
" 4 ( ! ! 4 % %'
! !
.
! .
! (0'
! 6 "
8/7" !
7
! . %'
!
! ! 7 87"
+ 3 7 7 87" + 3 7 ! "#"$
#%& '()
* +
# 7 89 ! , +.. :
''
! . ! %' . 0 ''6 ! . .
! & & '' ! . . ! %; %(< ! ! =
%% . 7 87 " + 3 7
! " :
'' %(< ! !
4 % . ! ,)$ %( > ! 4 %
. ! ! " :
'' %(< ! !
- ! !
"
!
?
:
;
( 0- 0-8 '
(
'
(
'
$ :0% ( 0- %4067! 0-8"
)"
'
)" ' ' )
(
%(
" ')
" ) '
"
#
'
" ')
" ') (
$ %(9"
" )( %(
(
)
"
' )
'
' '') 9 !( (
'
) '(
/
"
)
"
( 0- %406 7! 0-8 "
" * '(
) !( ( '(
'
' %( '
#
"
" ) '
'
'')
"
* ' 9 !(
#
'
'
9(
'
0%
< ' ( 0- 0-8 '') $ :0%
"
' )
(
%(9"( " ')
" )
*
'
$ %(9" ( the employee of petitioner-Company then whether termination of his services was illegal, and if so, to what consequential relief he was entitled to?
13.
In view of the fact that Tribunal has not rendered any reasoning in support of the observations made in impugned award dated 0-
0-8, accordingly in my considered view, the same is unsustainable in the eyes of law; consequently, the impugned award dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure P-16) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal below for deciding the reference afresh by passing a well reasoned Award, in accordance with law, preferably (
) "
(
0=
'( 0% 4% %4%=
( ')''(
"
0-
!'' '
78 ) ''' '
-.
.
1 .
" /
9
> $ % /
'
> $