HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.2130, 2401, 2454, 2543 & 2563 OF 1998 W.P. No.2130 of 1998 Between B.Satyanarayana. ….PETITIONER AND The Chairman and Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and others. ……RESPONDENTS W.P. No.2401 of 1998 Between B.Satyanarayana. ….PETITIONER AND The Chairman and Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and others. ……RESPONDENTS W.P. No.2454 of 1998 Between B.Satyanarayana. ….PETITIONER AND The Chairman and Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and others. ……RESPONDENTS W.P. No.2543 of 1998 Between B.Satyanarayana. ….PETITIONER AND The Chairman and Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and others. ……RESPONDENTS W.P. No.2563 of 1998 Between B.Satyanarayana. ….PETITIONER AND The Chairman and Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam and others. ……RESPONDENTS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.2130, 2401, 2454, 2543 & 2563 OF 1998 COMMON ORDER: These five writ petitions are filed against the awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the facts in W.P.No.2401 of 1998 could be taken as an illustrative of the five cases, and it would suffice, for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions, if the facts in W.P.No.2401 of 1998 are alone noted. At the behest of the second respondent, a dispute was raised before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam and he referred the following dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam: “Whether the termination of the services of Sri B.Paparao, Cleaner on the bus on route of Vizianagaram to Kottam via Jami by the Management of the bus was justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?” The dispute was numbered as I.D.No. 266 of 1993 and the second respondent herein filed the claim statement alleging that he was appointed by the third respondent in this writ petition, thereafter, the bus was leased to the petitioner herein; and the petitioner had, in turn, leased the bus to the fifth respondent. A counter affidavit was filed by the petitioner herein before the Tribunal questioning the very jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the dispute referred to it on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent–workman. The Industrial Tribunal passed an award on 28.11.1997 directing the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 herein jointly and severally to pay the second respondent- workman an amount of Rs.90,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of publication of the award till the date of payment. Respondents 3 and 4 chose not to challenge the award. This writ petition was dismissed as against respondents 3 and 4, as per the order of the Court dated 02.04.2009 (endorsement of the Registry dated 29.4.2009). Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, would challenge the validity of the award on the following grounds: 1. The Tribunal had not discussed the question regarding the existence of ‘employer-employee’ relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent, though the said question went to the root of the matter and necessitated adjudication as the adjudication of the dispute was dependent thereupon; 2. The service certificate and appointment order filed by the workman itself showed that the second respondent was employed by the first respondent and there was no occasion for the Tribunal to pass an award as against the petitioner herein (who was the third respondent in the I.D. before the Tribunal); and 3. In any event, the Tribunal could not have applied the multiplier under the Motor Vehicles Act to arrive at compensation of Rs.90,000/- when the Industrial Disputes Act, the provisions of which govern the adjudication by the Tribunal, makes no provision for determination of compensation. On the question as to whether there existed an employer and employee relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent-workman herein, while it is true that no preliminary issue was framed, the Tribunal had, however, observed that the second respondent was employed as a cleaner on the bus bearing No. AAV 5823; he was appointed by the third respondent; and he worked on the bus from 01.05.1985 till 05.05.1988. The Tribunal noted that the third respondent, in his evidence as MW.1, had stated that, in the year 1988, he and the petitioner filed an injunction suit O.S.No. 138 of 1988 against the second respondent and other workers and had obtained an order of injunction restraining them from entering into the bus; the petitioner herein had also filed a criminal case against the second respondent- workman and other workers, and from the date of the order of injunction, the second respondent and other staff of the bus remained unemployed; and, in the cross-examination, the third respondent herein had stated that the fourth respondent was his lessee and the petitioner herein was the manager of that lessee. The Tribunal observed that the fourth respondent had remained ex parte and did not choose to contradict either the contention of the workman or the contesting respondents; and noted that the petitioner examined himself as MW.2 and had claimed to have purchased the bus for Rs.30,000/- in the year 1988 and, in effect, was an equitable owner of the bus. The Tribunal also noted the admission of the petitioner herein that he had filed a criminal case against the second respondent-workman, at the instance of the third respondent herein; it was evident from the judgment in the criminal case (Ex.W.3) that the petitioner had averred that the second respondent was his employee; he had also alleged that the second respondent-workman had committed criminal breach of trust; and it came to the conclusion that the petitioner and the third respondent herein had conspired to prevent the second respondent-workman from enjoying his right to continue as an employee till he was removed service. In the light of this evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner and the third respondent were jointly and severally responsible for honouring the claim of the workman; it also noted that the petitioner herein had stated that the fourth respondent had purchased the bus and continued to keep the workers, including the second respondent- workman, in employment; and noted that the petitioner denied that he had ever got possession of the bus and having styled himself as the employer of the workman under Ex.W.3, he could not be heard to contend to contrary. In the light of the admission of the petitioner herein that he was the owner of the bus, it was evident that there existed an employer and employee relationship conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal to decide the dispute. Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners, would also draw the attention to the subsequent part of the order of the Criminal Court to contend that he was only the representative of the owner. It is necessary to borne in mind that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal nor would it substitute its views for that of the Tribunal, as long as the view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view, even if this Court were to be satisfied that the other view canvassed on behalf of the petitioner is more persuasive, even then, it would not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that the order of the Criminal Court, marked as Ex.W.3, contains recital regarding the petitioner’s admission of his being the employer of the second respondent-workman. It is evident, therefore, that there existed an employer and employee relationship and as such the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to decide the dispute raised by the workman. With regards the contention that the service certificate and appointment order filed by the workman showed that the second respondent was employed by the third respondent, it is true that the service certificate and the evidence of the third respondent herein as MW.1 does indicate that the second respondent- workman was engaged in the services of the third respondent till May, 1988. As submitted hereinabove, in the light of the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner had admitted, before the Criminal Court, that he was the employer of the second respondent- workman, the finding of the Tribunal holding him to be the equitable owner of the bus and liable for payment of compensation may not necessitate interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is necessary to note that the Tribunal had recorded a finding that the petitioner and the third respondent together filed a suit for injunction against the second respondent- workman, as a result of which the second respondent-workman remained unemployed. While the decree in the suit was marked as Ex.W2, the petitioner herein did not place before this Court either a copy of the plaint or the judgment of the Civil Court to show under what circumstances he had joined the third respondent in filing injunction suit against the second respondent-workman. It defies the reason that the petitioner herein would have filed the suit for injunction against the second respondent-workman restraining him from entering the bus, if, as contended by Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel, the petitioner herein had no connection whatsoever with the second respondent-workman. The mere fact that the third respondent had issued service certificate does not absolve the petitioner herein to joint and several liability fastened on him along with respondents 3 and 4 to make payment of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The last contention urged by Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the multiplier principle could not have been applied by the Industrial Tribunal inasmuch as the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be extended to adjudication proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. All that the Industrial Disputes Act provides is a machinery for adjudication of disputes between employer and his workman. The provisions neither stipulate nor prohibit application of any reasonable principle for awarding compensation. The Tribunal had found the multiplier principle to be reason more for awarding compensation and, accordingly, awarded compensation in four of these writ petitions at Rs.90,000/- to the workman and another at Rs.30,000/-. I see no reason to interfere with the awards merely on the ground that the Tribunal had applied the multiplier principle in awarding compensation. Viewed from any angle, the award of the Tribunal, impugned in these five writ petitions do not necessitate interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:19.02.2010 usd