AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 17.9.1998 vide which respondent No. 2 was ordered to be reinstated in the service of the petitioner with full back wages and continuity of service. Respondent No. 2 had contended that he was employed by the partner/proprietor of M/s Balwant Brothers at Basti Danishmandan, Jalandhar and the petitioner of the same address as a Cutterman in November 1988. The petitioner is M/s Balwant Brothers (P) Ltd., Basti Danishmandan, Jalandhar. His services were terminated with effect from 30.5.1994 illegally. The Labour Court accepted his plea. The workman contended that the demand notice was given to both M/s Balwant Brothers (P) and the petitioner. Balwant Brothers had pleaded that the workman was not employed by them. The petitioner pleaded that the reference has been made without complying with the provisions of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") and there was no material for the Government to form an opinion to make a reference. It also pleaded that Section 2A of the Act is not attracted. It is further pleaded that the workman wilfully, knowingly and intentionally started remaining absent without any application and getting the leave sanctioned with effect from 28.5.1994 afternoon. He was advised to join duty by a registered letter but it was returned undelivered with the remarks of the posta} authority as "refused". He was again asked to join the duty by letter dated 8.6.1995, but the same was again returned undelivered. The petitioner further pleaded that it came to know about the present dispute only after the receipt of the order of the Additional Labour Commissioner, Punjab vide which the dispute was referred for adjudication.
We have heard both the counsel and gone through the award of the Labour Court.
The case of the workman in the demand notice is that he had served both the respondents. Demand notice Exhibit MW1/1 is addressed to both the respondents while demand notice Exhibit MW2/1 is addressed only to M/s Balwant Brothers. The Labour Court after considering the oral evidence found that the documentary evidence suggested that both the petitioner and M/s Balwant Brothers had been manoeuvring the record in such a manner so that the workman may not know as to whether he is an em-ployee of M/s Balwant Brothers or of the petitioner. The Labour Court has considered the fact that Rakesh Kumar, Clerk, who appeared on behalf of M/s Balwant Brothers Pvt. Ltd. could not deny that E.S.I. Identity Card Exhibit MW3/5 of the workman was got issued at the instance of M/s Balwant Brothers. The petitioner does not deny that respondent was under its employment. Therefore, we find no reason why the above finding of the Labour Court should be disturbed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that there should have been a demand and the rejection of demand before referring the matter to the Labour Court. He has relied on the case of Fedders Lloyd Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor, Delhi through Under Secy. (Labour), Delhi and others, 1970 Lab. I.C. 421. In that case it has been observed by the Delhi High Court that the demand of the workman must be raised first on the Management and rejected by them before an Industrial dispute can be said to have arisen. In the present case, the Labour Court has held that demand notice was served on the petitioner also. The Labour Court has observed as under in regard to the above question : "But I am of the opinion that there are two demand notices available on record which were received in this Court along with references from the Gov-ernment, a perusal of which shows that one of them was sent to both the respondents while second was sent to respondent No. 1 alone. There is nothing on record that some official in the office of Labour Commissioner, Punjab, from whom this reference was received in the court colluded with the workman and fabricated certain record. I am, therefore, fully convinced that demand notice was served on both the respondents." We find no reason to deviate from the above finding of the Labour Court. No reason is shown as to how it should not be accepted.
No further point has been argued. This petition is, therefore, without merit and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.