THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.553 OF 2006 DATED 7TH DECEMBER, 2010 BETWEEN M.Ramakrishna … Petitioner And M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Rep. by its Territorial Manager, Rajahmundry. And Others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.553 OF 2006 ORDER: Alleging illegal retrenchment of his services by M/s.Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), the petitioner herein approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, in L.C.I.D.No.21 of 2002. By Award dated 15.12.2003, the Labour Court granted compensation to the petitioner holding that it could not go into the details as to the petitioner’s status and that he had to raise a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner for conciliation and thereafter, in the event of failure, seek reference of the dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1947’). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this Court. The claim of the petitioner before the Labour Court was that he was originally engaged in the service of the BPCL as a contract labour but was thereafter engaged in his own right as a self-employed service provider/self- employed contractor. He claimed to have rendered regular service to the BPCL under the contract from 01.07.1997 to 01.04.1999 when his services were abruptly terminated without ceremony even before the contract expired. Complaining that the same amounted to ‘illegal retrenchment’, he approached the Labour Court. The stand of the BPCL before the Labour Court was that the petitioner was not a workman as defined in the Act of 1947. According to the BPCL, he was awarded a contract of service which came to an end by efflux of time. The BPCL further stated that the jobs rendered by the petitioner were not of a perennial nature and that he was not entitled to any relief in the I.D., as the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The Labour Court, upon examination of the material on record, was of the opinion that it could not go into the question as to whether the contract under which the petitioner had worked earlier was a sham and nominal one, whereby he could claim to be the employee of the BPCL itself. According to the Labour Court, the petitioner had to seek conciliation in the first instance and thereafter, in the event of failure, seek reference of the dispute under Section 10 of the Act of 1947. Holding so, the Labour Court strangely went on to award damages for the premature termination of the contract and also compensation. The reliefs granted by the Labour Court were beyond its jurisdiction and unfortunately, the Labour Court failed to exercise the powers which were within its jurisdiction. The subject petition was filed under Section 2-A(2) of the Act of 1947 alleging retrenchment in violation of the prescribed procedure. The Labour Court under Section 11-A of the Act of 1947 was therefore required to go into various aspects. In the facts of the case, the Labour Court necessarily had to examine the status of the petitioner and whether he fulfilled the requirements of Section 2(s) of the Act of 1947 to qualify as a workman. The Labour Court could have thereafter looked into the procedural violations, if any, in the termination of his services. The approach adopted by the Labour Court in washing its hands of the dispute by baldly stating that the petitioner had to seek conciliation in the first instance and thereafter, reference of the dispute, is contrary to the scheme of the Act of 1947. The Award under challenge is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, for consideration afresh in the light of the observations made supra. The Writ Petition is allowed, but in the circumstances of the case, without any order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 7TH DECEMBER, 2010. VGSR/PGS