CWP No.1540 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.1540 of 2007 Date of Decision: 21.03.2011 Mangu Ram ...Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Ms.Maninder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. --- Mahesh Grover, J . (Oral) The petitioner impugns the award dated 23.05.2005 of Labour Tribunal, Bathinda, whereby reference claimed by the respondents was accepted. The petitioner claimed reference to the following effect: “ Whether the termination of services of workman Mangu Ram is justified and in order? If not so, to what relief is he entitled?” The petitioner claims that he was appointed on 8.3.1992 by the CWP No.1540 of 2007 2 Management of Guru Nanak Dev Thermal Plant, Bathinda, who is the principal employer and who has been arrayed herein as respondent. He was employed through the contractor as helper and was assigned the duty of Coal Handling Plaint. The grievance of the petitioner is that he continued in service till 9.10.2000 when his services were terminated without passing any order to that effect. He was drawing Rs.1854/- per month. He claimed that the post on which he was working was of permanent nature and thus, the termination of his services is violative of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and that the respondents have indulged in unfair labour practice by projecting that the services of the petitioner have been engaged through a contractor whereas for all intents and purposes the respondents themselves are his principal employers. He, thus, contended that the action of the respondents is violative of the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act and thus, unsustainable and that such action is also violative of the provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The respondents in their written statement pleaded that the petitioner was never employed by the respondents and that he was working on contractual basis with the contractor who was engaged by the Senior XEN, Coal Handling Plant, GNDTP, Bathinda. It was further pleaded that some contracts have been executed in favour of various contractors who have been engaged for the execution of jobs of hiring of manpower and the contractors are free to engage any number of workmen, machinery and the respondents have no control whatsoever in engaging the workmen for CWP No.1540 of 2007 3 execution of work allotted to the contractor. Hence there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondents. He pleaded that reference is unwarranted and prayed for its dismissal. The learned Tribunal upon appraisal of material before it concluded that the petitioner was the employee of the contractor and since there was no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the respondents and also for the reason that the petitioner had failed to discharge the onus of establishing that he was the employee of the respondents, declined the reference. This had resulted in the challenge to the said award by way of this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended with reference to the terms of contract which have been extracted in the award itself with a specific mention of Clause VI which is extracted hereinbelow:, “6. The contractor shall furnish the names of his authorized representatives immediately after finalization of the contract in each shift. The contractor/his authorized representatives shall sign in the register maintained in the wagon tippler control from and should start work only after receiving instructions from the Engineer-in-charge of the shift.” that, the very fact that Engineer-in-charge was responsible for supervising the work of contractor who engaged the workmen would reveal that the respondents were his principal employer. She further contended that the respondents had merely set up its agreement vis-a-vis the contractor in order to indulge in unfair labour practice and to defeat the right of workers who CWP No.1540 of 2007 4 were so engaged in the execution of the contract. It was lastly contended that the workman has worked for a sufficiently long time and therefore, he was entitled to at least compensation if not reinstatement. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents despite the fact that the case was shown in the list. This Court, therefore, has no option but to proceed to determine the matter. On due consideration, it transpires from the perusal of the award that the petitioner has been unable to show any material which would reflect that he was the employee of the respondents. Neither any appointment letter nor any termination order has been produced before the Tribunal. Likewise the petitioner did not make any attempt to produce the muster rolls or any such material which would suggest that the petitioner was employed with the respondents. Even as per own showing of the petitioner he has pleaded before the Tribunal and admitted in his statement before it that he was employed through the Agency of the contractor. That being the position and without there being any contrary material which could show that the petitioner was employed by the respondents, I am of the opinion that findings recorded by the tribunal do not warrant any interference. Even before this court learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show any such material which could lead to an inference that the petitioner was employee of the respondents. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned award. The plea that the petitioner deserves compensation is also CWP No.1540 of 2007 5 without merit for the reason that the respondents are not the principal employers of the petitioner and the petitioner for the reasons best known to him has not persisted with the pursuit of his claim as against the person who engaged his services. There is, thus, no ground to interfere in the impugned award. Dismissed. (Mahesh Grover) 21.03.2011 Judge rp