M/s. Bhai Sunder Das and Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs Hira Lal

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated July 19, 2000 (copy Annexure P-1) vide which respondent No. 1 was ordered to be reinstated in service with 60% back wages.

Respondent No. 1 had contended that he was appointed by the petitioner in the month of September, 1994 as Welder and his last drawn salary was Rs. 1500/- per month. He has further contended that his service was terminated on November 27, 1995 without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of !he Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

The defence taken by the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 was not its employee, but was an employee of the contractor, but the Labour Court has not accepted this plea. The Labour Court has considered the fact that earlier an application under the Payment of Wages Act was also filed and the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 2377.50 for the period from October 11, 1995 to November 27, 1995, and had referred the receipt Exhibit W-2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that according to the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, if the contractor does not pay wages, it is the duty of the principal employer to pay the amount and hence, if the amount was paid by the petitioner, it cannot be inferred that respondent No. 1 was an employee of the petitioner. However, no contract deed was exhibited nor any contract with the contractor is, admittedly, produced before the Labour Court. The contractor has not been called as a witness by she petitioner. Except for the bare words of the petitioner, there is nothing to show that the respondent was an employee of the contractor engaged by the petitioner.

The next contention of the petitioner is that there is no finding of the Labour Court that respondent No. 1 has completed 240 days of his service. However, it can be seen that respondent No. 1 had contended that he had worked with the petitioner from September, 1994 to November 27, 1995. A copy of the written statement filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court is at Annexure P-2. It is not contended that the working days of respondent No. 1 with the petitioner were less than 240 days. When this is the position, the Labour Court can not be faulted for not giving a finding of respondent No. 1 having worked for 240 days in view of the absence of the pleadings from the petitioner and the specific period of service mentioned by respondent No. 1.

No further point has been argued.

In view of the above reasons, this writ petition is without merits and is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.