Case: P.V.K.Distillery Ltd Vs. Mahendra Ram

respondent, Mahendra Ram, was recruited on casual basis some time in the year 1981 in M/s P.V.K. Distillery Ltd. (now rechristened as Lords Distillery Ltd.). On 14.8.1982 he was shifted to bottling section as a permanent workman by the orders of the General Manager. On 19.1.1985 services of the respondent were terminated by an oral order from the employer. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent went before the Labour Court inter-alia alleging that he was employed in the establishment of the employer and that his services were terminated orally in an unjustifiable and illegal manner. Appellants on the other hand contended, that, respondent was engaged by Gaya Singh Yadav, contractor and therefore respondent was never in their employment and thus master-servant relationship never existed between them.3) Labour Court after considering and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, has come to the conclusion, that, the respondent, Mahendra Ram, was in the continuous employment of the establishment since 1980 and the employer unjustifiably and illegally terminated workmans services from 19.1.1985. The labour court has also come to the conclusion that the respondent-workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, as required by section 25B(2) (a) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and therefore he is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and full employment benefits and back wages.4) In the interregnum, the appellants factory remained closed for years together and ultimately it was declared as a sick unit. Management of the company was substituted with the present management for its rehabilitation/reconstruction.5) Appellant then went before the High Court challenging the validity and legality of the award by which the workman has been reinstated with continuity of service and full employment benefits and back wages. By the impugned order, the High Court has stated that there is no reason to doubt the findings given by the Labour Court and declined to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court in Adj. Case N0. 32/87. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant is before us by this special leave petition.

Court's reasoning:
U.P. Industrial Disputes