Chandi Ram vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Hissar & Ors.

KIRTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the Award dated 25.02.2016 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Hisar, in Reference No.03 of 2015, whereby the reference raised on behalf of the petitioner-workman was answered against him and his claim for reinstatement with full back-wages and consequential benefits was declined.

The pleaded facts of the case are that the petitioner was engaged as Chowkidar by the respondent-management on daily wages at D.C. rates, with effect from 07.09.2013, at Dhakal Water Works. It is the case of the petitioner that his work and conduct remained satisfactory throughout the period of his engagement and that he completed 240 days of continuous service in the preceding twelve months; however, his services were terminated verbally by respondents No.2 and 3 with effect from 05.09.2014 without assigning any reason, without notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation, in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further averred that junior employees were retained in service and a fresh appointment was made to the post while dispensing with the services of the petitioner.

On the raising of an industrial dispute, the matter was referred by the Government of Haryana for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Hisar, vide notification dated 25.05.2015, whereupon the issue framed was whether the termination of services of the petitioner was justified, and if not, to what relief he was entitled.

Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the ld. Tribunal held that the petitioner had failed to establish that he was directly employed by respondents No.2 and 3. The ld. Tribunal accordingly concluded that the relationship of employer and employee existed between the petitioner and the contractors and not between the petitioner and respondents No.2 and 3, and that the plea of violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act was not substantiated. Resultantly, the reference was answered against the petitioner and no relief was granted. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award suffers from patent illegality inasmuch as the ld. Tribunal ignored the oral and documentary evidence on record. It was urged that the private contractors themselves had filed affidavits denying that they had engaged the petitioner or paid him any salary, and that this very admission established that the petitioner was in fact working for and paid by respondents No.2 and 3, the contractual arrangement being no more than a device to defeat his claim. It is further submitted that the ld. Tribunal failed to appreciate that respondents No.2 and 3 did not produce the muster roll or attendance record despite an application for summoning the same, and that an adverse inference ought to have been drawn against the department instead of the claim being rejected. It is thus contended that the Labour Court committed patent error in passing the impugned award, which accordingly deserves to be set aside.

Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned award and submits that the finding recorded by the ld. Tribunal is based on cogent documentary evidence placed on record, corroborated by the admission of the petitioner himself in cross-examination that he received his salary through a contractor, and calls for no interference.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material on record.

Reverting to the case in hand, upon consideration of the evidence, it was the finding of the ld. Tribunal that from the perusal of the departmental record produced by the management, it stood established that payments for the work at Dhakal Water Works were released in favour of different contractors from time to time, who made further payments to the workman. This finding was corroborated when the petitioner himself admitted in his cross-examination that he used to receive his salary through the office of the respondent-management through the contractor. The onus to establish that the said contractual arrangement was sham or a camouflage to conceal a direct relationship of employer and employee, as observed by the ld. Tribunal lay upon the petitioner, and no material was placed on record to discharge the said onus. In the considered opinion of this Court, the finding so recorded by the ld. Tribunal is a pure finding of fact, based upon due appreciation of the documentary evidence on record, and cannot be said to suffer from perversity or any manifest legal infirmity. So far as the plea regarding completion of 240 days of continuous service is concerned, even assuming the same to be correct, it would be of no avail to the petitioner once it stands established that he was not in the employment of respondents No.2 and 3 but of the contractors engaged from time to time, since the question of continuous service under an employer presupposes the existence of an employer-employee relationship with that very employer in the first place. The plea regarding violation of Sections 25-G and 25-H of the Act also does not survive, as the petitioner failed to name any junior employee retained in service or any person recruited to the post after the alleged termination.

It is trite that while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. The scope of judicial review is confined to examining whether the impugned award suffers from perversity, patent illegality, jurisdictional error or is based on no evidence. Re-appreciation of evidence lies outside the ambit of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that the findings recorded by the ld. Tribunal suffer from any such infirmity. The impugned award reflects a due and proper appreciation of the pleadings, the evidence adduced by the parties and the settled legal principles governing the controversy. No ground, therefore, is made out to warrant interference.

Consequently, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.