Babu Lal Jangid vs The Assistant Engineer, Public Health and Engineering Department and Another

Heard learned Counsel for the appellant.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 2.5.2007 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the award of the Labour Court dated 20.2.2002, has been dismissed. A reference was made to the learned Labour Court by the appropriate Government on the question, whether removal of the appellant by Assistant Engineer, PHED, Lalsot, District Dausa vide order dated 6.6.1995 was legal and valid and if not what relief the workman was entitled to.

The learned Labour Court on analysis of the evidence led before it, held that there was no relationship of master and servant between the appellant and the respondent-workman, inasmuch, as the appellant could not prove the fact that he had actually worked for more than 240 days in the calender year immediately preceding the date of his retrenchment. The learned Single Judge upheld the award. Hence this appeal.

The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Labour Court had not correctly appreciated the evidence. It was argued that the specific assertion made by the appellant that he was initially engaged on 15.3.1994 and was removed on 6.6.1995, was not specifically denied. It was wrongly held that the appellant was engaged on contract basis. Learned Counsel for the appellant referred to the State amendment to the definition of ''workman'' as contained in Section 2(S) of the Industrial Disputes Act and argued that an employee, even if engaged through contractor, has to be treated as a workman. He argued that the contention of the respondent that the appellant was engaged on contract basis was untenable. There was sufficient evidence before the Labour Court to hold that the appellant continuously worked from the date of initial appointment on 15.3.1994 till he was removed on 6.6.1995. The learned Counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited Vs. State of U.P. and Others, and argued that the unfair labour practise adopted by the management in engaging the workmen through contractor has been deprecated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. It was argued that even the workman engaged on contract basis is workman because of the aforesaid State amendment. Therefore, the learned Labour Court erred in law in not treating the appellant as employee of the respondent. It further erred in law in holding that the workman had not worked for more than 240 days in the calender year immediately preceding the date on which the appellant was retrenched. It was also argued that the learned Single Judge has also committed an error in not correctly appreciating all the arguments and dismissing the writ petition only on the premise that this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution cannot re-appreciate the evidence so as to arrive at another conclusion.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award as also the other materials on record, we find that the learned Labour Court, in its award, has marshalled the evidence in great details. The learned Labour Court found that the workman essentially worked for a period of three months, but he could not prove it by any evidence whatsoever that he was engaged or was awarded the work of maintenance at any point of time thereafter. Stand of the appellant before the Labour Court was that initially by order dated 15.3.1994 he was appointed for maintenance works for a period of three months and thereafter engaged orally. Whenever he insisted on giving appointment order, he was assured of the same but finally his services were terminated on 6.6.1995. The appellant in support of his case produced two witnesses namely, Prahlad Narain and Prabhu Singh. These witnesses, however, could not stand the scrutiny in the cross-examination. The learned Labour Court on appreciation of evidence did not find their version reliable. The learned labour court found that even in the affidavit filed by the appellant in his evidence, it was not asserted whether he was engaged on any date after the expiry of the initial period of three months.

The learned labour court has recorded the finding that for the subsequent period also, whenever the appellant was engaged for the work of maintenance on job work basis, he was paid for that. Apart from the fact that the learned labour court did not find the relationship of master and servant, it also held that the appellant also could not prove by any cogent evidence that he had actually worked for a period of 240 days in the calender year immediately preceding the date of the alleged retrenchment. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (supra) on which reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant was one in which the workmen were engaged through contractor, whereas in the present case, the appellant himself was awarded the work of maintenance on contract basis and that too for a period of three months. There was thus total lack of evidence in so far as the working of the appellant for more than 240 days in the calender year immediately preceding the date of his alleged retrenchment. This was essentially finding of fact recorded by the learned labour court. In our considered view, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that this Court should not re-appreciate the evidence so as to arrive at another conclusion.

On consideration of the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellant, we do not find that the findings recorded by the learned labour court in any manner suffer from any error apparent on the face of record so as to justify interference by this Court.

This appeal, which lacks merit, is therefore dismissed.