IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 2055 of 1989 For Approval and Signature: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- MOHAMADBHAI AHMEDBHAI Versus PRVIATE INTELLIGENCE (CRIME) BUREAU -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 2055 of 1989 Ms. Anupam Srivastava for MR GM JOSHI for Petitioner No. 1-2 SERVED BY AFFIX.-(R) for Respondent No. 1 Mr. Chirag Pawar for MR PS CHARI for Respondent No. 2 RULE SERVED for Respondent No. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD Date of decision: 10/01/2005 ORAL JUDGEMENT Heard learned advocate Ms. Anupam Srivastava for Mr.Gautam Joshi for the petitioners and Mr. Chirag Pawar,learned advocate for Mr. P.S. Chari for respondent NO.2. In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order made by the labour court in Recovery Application NO.4 270 of 1977 dated 29th August, 1986. Learned advocate Ms. Srivastava has submitted that the petitioners were appointed by the partnership firm, therefore, all the partners are liable to make payment to the petitioners. She also submits that the advertisement was issued by the partnership firm, business closed was of the partnership firm, therefore, petitioners are entitled for the benefit of their legal dues from the partnership firm, therefore, respondents no.1 to 3 are liable to make necessary payment as claimed in the recovery application. She submits that the labour court has not properly appreciated the oral evidence and, therefore, the order of the labour court is required to be interfered with by this court. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Pawar appearing for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the labour court has rightly appreciated the oral evidence as well as clear admission of respondent NO.3 that he was managing the affairs and supervising the work in his personal capacity and he was holding licence for private detective work and, therefore, respondents no.1 and 2 are not liable but only respondent no.3 is liable to make such payment and that issue has rightly been decided by the labour court. I have considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the parties. I have perused the order in question made by the labour court. Before the labour court, petitioners as well as respondent No.2 and 3 both were examined. Labour court has discussed entire evidence including the cross examination of each witnesses and ultimately has appreciaed the admission of respondent no.3 in cross examination. Following observations of the labour court are relevant. "This admission of the opponent no.3 in his cross examination itself shows that the entire Intelligence Bureau was conducted, managed and supervised by he himself in his personal capacity because he was the holder of the licence for private detective work. He further submits that he is a member of Council of International Investigators, USA since many years and even at present he is continued as a member." In view of this appreciation by the labour court of the evidence of the respondent No.3, labour court directed respondent no.3 to pay to the applicants i.e. present petitioners, amount shown in the order within one month from the date of the order. The labour court has carefully considered and scrutinize the evidence of both the respondents and ultimately came to the conclusion that the respondent no.3 is liable to make payment to the petitioner. Relevant discussion made by the labour court in para 21 and 22 is reproduced as under: "21. Thus after careful scrutiny of the evidence of the opponent no.3 and the opponent no.2, it becomes crystal clear that the relation of master and servant is of employee and employer existed between the opponent no.3 himself and the applicants and for that the opponent no.3 as a Director had employed the applicants for the purpose of helping him in private intelligence work including the security and other arrangement entrusted to him by the persons and the customers. The opponent NO.3 is therefore liable to pay dues to the applicants. 22. The learned advocate Shri GF Soni for the applicants submitted before me that the opponent no.3 was charging fees from the various customers and further the private detective work was entrusted to the applicants by the opponent NO. 3. I have no opportunity to hear the arguments of the learned advocate Smt. SR Abheyankar or even that of Shri PS Chari.But irrespective of the arguments whether made or not, the facts remain undisputed that the opponent no.3 himself in his written statement and also in his evidence admits the claim of the applicants and for that he has admitted before the court that he was ready and willing top ay 50% of the claim of the applicants. As discussed above,the evidence on record clearly shows that the opponent no.3 had worked as a Director of Private Intelligence (Crime) Bureau, and he himself was exclusively managing the affairs and for this purpose his residential telephone number was used. This shows that the opponent no.3 had employed the applicants for the purpose of helping him in his work. The opponent No.3 is therefore liable top ay the dues of the applicants." In view of these observations made by the labour court on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence, this court cannot reappreciate the same in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, contentions raised by the learned advocate Ms.Anupam Srivastava cannot be accepted in view of the oral evidence of respondent no.3 and the observations made by the labour court. Therefore, according to my opinion, labour court has not committed any error while passing such order and there is no any infirmity in the order made by the labour court. Ms. Srivastava has not been able to point out any infirmity in the order. Therefore, there is no substance in the present petition and the same is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. (H.K. Rathod,J.) Vyas