Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 177 (MP)

General Manager (Personnel) v. Chhotelal Shivhare

2020-02-03

SUJOY PAUL

body2020
ORDER : SUJOY PAUL, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court (Tribunal) Jabalpur dated 27.2.2015 whereby the terms of reference sent by appropriate government is answered by the tribunal in favour of the workman. 2. Shri Panjwani, learned counsel for the employer criticized the award by contending that the workman was not an employee of the petitioner/management. He himself was a contractor. He took the contract of providing services of driver to Indian Airlines at a fixed monthly contract amount. Reliance is placed on paragraph 2 of the written statement filed before the tribunal. By taking this Court to the documents filed before the tribunal, learned counsel for the employer urged that the tribunal has failed to see that respondent was not a ‘workman’ within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the ID Act’), indeed, he was a contractor which is evident from the document filed by the management witness before the tribunal. Since, there was no master-servant relation between the petitioner and respondent. The tribunal erred in applying Section 25-F of the ID Act. The findings of the tribunal are perverse and liable to be interfered with. Reliance is also placed on a document dated 3.2.1994, photocopy of which was filed before the tribunal. It is canvassed by Shri Panjwani that this was a settlement arrived at before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) between the employer and workman wherein respondent signed in the capacity of contractor. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, the respondent can be treated to be workman of petitioner/employer. 3. Per contra, Shri Uttam Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned award. It is submitted that definition of Contractor as per the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 makes it clear that only such person can be termed as Contractor who supplies contract labour for any work to the establishment of the employer. Since the workman herein himself was performing the duties and was getting wages in lieu thereof, he cannot be termed as Contractor. Apart from this, the tribunal has given detailed and justifiable reasons which may not be interfered with. 4. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. Apart from this, the tribunal has given detailed and justifiable reasons which may not be interfered with. 4. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 6. The workman filed statements of claim before the Tribunal by specifically contending that he was working with the petitioner-employer. He has worked from 1979 till 20.06.2005. Before his discontinuation, no retrenchment compensation was paid to him. In support of these averments, the workman entered the witness box and supported the averments by his deposition. He was subjected to cross-examination. The Tribunal considered this aspect in its proper prospective. 7. The employer although raised objection that the respondent was a Contractor, did not file any contract which establishes any such relation with the respondent. Putting it differently, if any contract was entered into between the employer and the respondent herein, the employer being custodian of record ought to have produced it before the Tribunal. The documents dated 22.07.1982 and 20.06.2005 on which reliance is placed by the management witnesses show that vehicle was being driven by the respondent himself. The Tribunal considered the definition of “Contractor” as per the Act of 1970 and came to hold that the respondent himself was the workman and he did not provide any workmen to drive the vehicle of the management. The Tribunal has not given any weightage to document/settlement dated 03.02.1994 which is an illegible photocopy and workman in his cross-examination categorically denied that any such settlement was ever arrived at. Tribunal's view is a plausible view. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, on the basis of evidence on record, the Tribunal has given justifiable reasons. In the limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, this Court is not obliged to re-appreciate the evidence as an appellate Court. Another view is possible, is not a ground of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Since it was the stand of the employer that the respondent was not their workman and indeed, he was a Contractor, the burden was certainly on the employer to produce the relevant contract to establish such relation. In absence of producing any such contract, no fault can be found in the award of the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not grant the relief of reinstatement indeed, granted only Rs. In absence of producing any such contract, no fault can be found in the award of the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not grant the relief of reinstatement indeed, granted only Rs. 2 lacs as compensation to a workman who has worked from 1979 to 2005. The compensation was rightly directed to be paid because, admittedly, before discontinuation of the respondent, the mandate of Section 25-F of ID Act was not followed. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the parties submit that the amount of Rs. 2 lacs (compensation amount) has already been deposited by the employer in the Registry of this Court on 28.12.2015. Thus, it is directed that the respondent can obtain that amount from the Registry of this Court. 10. In view of foregoing analysis, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned award. Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.