Dhirinder Negi and Others vs Management of Ashoka Hotel

V.K. Shali, J.—Proxy Counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment on the ground that Mr.Azhar Alam, Advocate is out of station. Request of adjournment is disallowed in view of the fact that the previous orders show that since 26.9.2007, adjournments on behalf of the petitioner have been sought on 25.3.2008, 26.11.2008 and 3.3.2009. Neither rejoinder has been filed, nor main Counsel for the petitioner is present even today, therefore, the request for adjournment is disallowed.

The petitioner by virtue of the present writ petition has challenged the award dated 3rd January, 2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal-I in ID No. 108/1996.

By virtue of the aforesaid award, the learned Labour Court has come to a finding of fact that the petitioners in the instant case were not the employees of respondent No. 1 i.e. Ashoka Hotel and that they were actually employees of M/s Metal Hard Electronic Services and therefore, there exists no relationship of the employee and employer between them which would confer the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court. The finding of the learned Labour Court on this issue is given in paragraphs 20, 21 and 22, which reads as under:

A bare perusal of statement of claim itself shows that the workmen themselves admit that there was a contract between mgt. No. 1 and mgt. No. 2 and there is no averment in the statement of claim that the contract was sham or bogus.

Perusal of statement of claim further shows that it has also been stated that the contract was upto 10.2.95 and the names of the workmen, mentioned in the reference had worked only upto that date. Though it has been stated in para 16 that the Security Officers of mgt. No. 1 illegally removed the workmen forcibly on 17.2.95 yet in para 19, it is clearly stated that the termination was by management No. 2 i.e. the contractor as it is clearly stated that M/s. Metal Hard Electronic Services in connivance with management No. 1 had wrongly, illegally and forcibly terminated the services of the workmen. So, termination by mgt. No. 2 is also admitted in the statement of claim.

A perusal of statement of claim itself reveals that it is the own case of the workmen that their salary was paid by management No. 2 as is evident from the averments, made in para 11 of the statement of claim wherein it has been stated that the Proprietor of mgt. No. 2 was not paying minimum wages to the workmen concerned and used to take signatures on blank papers without paying the amount against their names.

Further it has been admitted by WW-3 Sh. Surender Singh that the dispute against respondent No. 1 Ashoka Hotel has been raised only on account of the fact that their contractor had run away. Merely because the contractor had run away, the respondent No. 2 would not become their employer.

I have gone through the award passed by the learned Labour Court. The said award is a reasoned award and it has come to a finding of fact on the basis of appreciation of evidence and pleadings of the parties that there does not exists a relationship of the employee and employer between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. The petitioners in the instant writ petition have not been able to show that there is any violation of principles of natural justice, or any rule, regulation or that there is any perversity in the award. Accordingly, the writ petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed.