Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 882 (JHR)

Surendra Pal Singh v. Union of India (UOI)

2007-11-29

R.K.MERATHIA

body2007
JUDGMENT R.K. Merathia, J. 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the Award dated 23.6.2006, passed in Reference Case No. 34/2004 by the learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dharbad. 2. The following dispute was referred for adjudication. Whether the demand of Sri Surendra Pal Singh S/o Sri Balbir Singh from the management of M.E.C.L., R.C.S. Project, Dugda Coal Washery for reinstatement with full back wages is legal and justified? If so, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to? 3. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that he was appointed to the post of Sampling Assistant at Raw Coal Sampling Project of M/s Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd., a Government of India Enterprises ( the Management for short) on 30.7.1998. He worked with effect from 1.4.1999. All of a sudden, he was stopped from duty with effect from 30.9 2001 in violation of Section 25F of the I. D. Act. 4. On the other hand, the case of the Management, in short, is that petitioner was never appointed by the Management and as such there was no relationship of employer and employee between them. Petitioner's name along with others were sponsored by the Employment Exchange. There was an interview on 30.7.1998 but petitioner was not found fit. Further, the work of sampling of coal was assigned to the Management by M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited and M/s Steel Authority of India Limited. The Management has no work of coal sampling on its own. However, the job of coal sampling was undertaken as awarded by the client on contract basis. Such work was not of continuous and permanent nature and the Management had to wind up the coal sampling project soon on completion of the work awarded by the coal producer/user organization. The Management had entered into a specific contract on 31.3.1999 with M/s Bhayanak Security Agency ( hereinafter referred to as the contractor) for supplying technical and specialized man power for carrying out various sampling/chemical analytical jobs as the Management was not having such man power. Such contract was extended from time to time up to 30.9.2001. Petitioner and others were engaged by the contractor and were deployed with the Management. Clause 12 of such contract clearly stipulated that there would not be any employer and employee relationship between the Management and the persons deployed by the said contractor. 5. Such contract was extended from time to time up to 30.9.2001. Petitioner and others were engaged by the contractor and were deployed with the Management. Clause 12 of such contract clearly stipulated that there would not be any employer and employee relationship between the Management and the persons deployed by the said contractor. 5. The Tribunal framed the following points: (i) Whether the concerned workman was appointed by M/s M.E.C.L. as alleged by him? (ii) Whether the concerned workman was appointed by M/s Bhayanak Security Agency and his service came to an end with effect from completion of the contract awarded to M/s Bhayanak Security Agency? (iii) Is the concerned workman, Surendra Pal Singh, entitled to any relief If so, to what relief? 6. With regard to points No. 1 and 2, after considering the materials on record and the submissions of the parties, the Labour Court held that petitioner was never appointed by the Management, rather he was appointed by the Contractor and his engagement came to an end with the completion of the contract and for that he was already served with a notice one month prior to the completion of the contract by the contractor and he was also given a certificate for employment by the contractor. Regarding point No. 3, it held that as the petitioner was never appointed by the Management, his demand for reinstatement with all the back wages and consequential relief with effect from 30.9.2001 is nor. at all justified. 7. The main grievance of the petitioner, appearing in person, is that though he furnished about 10 documents on 6.12.2005 with a list of documents but they were not considered by the Labour Court. 8. Mr. Sen, appearing for the Management, referring to the list of documents filed by the petitioner and para 58 of the counter affidavit, submitted that admittedly petitioner filed only photostat copies, of the documents and he himself chose not to exhibit them for the reasons best known to him. In fact, he exhibited only two documents from the said list i.e. office memo dated 18.5.2000 and its reply dated 20.5.2000. Petitioner deliberately did not file and exhibit the original letter of appointment, on the basis of which, he is claiming to be employee under the Management. In fact, he exhibited only two documents from the said list i.e. office memo dated 18.5.2000 and its reply dated 20.5.2000. Petitioner deliberately did not file and exhibit the original letter of appointment, on the basis of which, he is claiming to be employee under the Management. Referring to paragraph 32 of the counter affidavit, he submitted that no such letter was ever issued by the Management and photo copy of the appointment letter was a fabricated document. 9. I have carefully gone through the records. The main dispute is whether there was relationship of master and servant between the petitioner and the Management. The Labour Court found that in the list of selected candidates ( Ext. M-3), name of petitioner was not there. From the admitted documents and Ext.M/1, M to 5, it appears that petitioner was appointed by the contractor. The letter of appointment issued by the contractor is Ext.M-2 bearing signature of the petitioner accepting the terms and conditions of the contractor-Ext.M-/l. Thus, the Labour Court held that the said documents filed by the petitioner himself before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, clearly proves that he was appointed by the contractor under appointment letter dated 30.3.1999. Petitioner also filed a letter before the Assistant Labour Commissioner-Ext.M-2/3, which is a notice by the contractor to him intimating that the contract was going to terminate w.e.f. 30.9.2001 and therefore he was advised to fill up application for Employees Provident Fund Forms. Petitioner himself filed statement of Employees Pension Scheme (Ext.M-2/4 and M-2/5) which proves that employees provident funds were deducted from his wages and was deposited by the contractor along with employer's share. Petitioner also annexed a service certificate granted by the contractor (Ext-M-2/2) certifying that he worked from 1.4.1999 to 30.9.2001 as sampling assistant on consolidated salary, under the contractor. Thus, the Labour Court held that from the own documents of the petitioner, it was proved that he was appointed by the contractor on a temporary job, which automatically terminated on completion of contract and moreover the contractor gave him one month's notice prior to termination of service. Therefore, it held that claim of the petitioner that he was appointed by the Management was nothing but a blatant lie. The Management produced Exts. M-4, 5.6 and 7 to prove that the contract was assigned to the contractor. Therefore, it held that claim of the petitioner that he was appointed by the Management was nothing but a blatant lie. The Management produced Exts. M-4, 5.6 and 7 to prove that the contract was assigned to the contractor. The name of petitioner was found at serial No. 40 in the list of employees of the contractor. On the basis of documents produced by the Management, the Labour Court found that it is crystal clear that the contract work was assigned to the contractor for supplying man power for security and allied jobs on 1.4.1999 which came to an end on 30.9.2001 and that petitioner was employed by the contractor. The Labour Court found that Ext. W-l and W-2 produced by the petitioner did not prove the case of petitioner that there was employer employee relationship between the Management and him. It further observed that for the reasons best known to him, petitioner did not file the original letter of appointment, on the basis of which, he claimed to be employee of the Management. 10. From the facts and circumstances, noticed above, it is clear that the Labour Court considered all the documents exhibited by the parties and arrived at the findings which are not at all perverse. The contention of the petitioner that the documents filed by him with the list of exhibits were not exhibited, has no basis. All the documents were photo copies and it appears that he himself got exhibited only two documents, Ext-W-1 and W-2, which have been considered by the Labour Court. Though, he filed a photo copy of the purported letter of appointment issued to him by the Management but he never produced the original of the same. 11. The scope of interference with the Award under writ jurisdiction is limited. In my opinion, the Award is neither perverse, nor illegal. I find no reason to interferer with the findings of facts correctly recorded by the Labour Court. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs. 12. As Petitioner appeared in person, let a copy of this order be sent to him. Petition dismissed.