Urban Improvement Trust, Kota vs Judge, Labour Court, Kota and Others

Gyan Sudha Misra, J.—An award has been passed in favour of the workman-respondent No. 2-Bhagwati Prasad Sharma essentially on the ground that his services got merged with the petitioner-Urban Improvement Trust, Kota and hence his services could not have been terminated. Consequently an order of his reinstatement has been passed alongwith 25% of back wages.

The petitioner-Urban Improvement Trust, Kota has challenged the aforesaid award and while assailing this, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. R.P. Singh submitted that the workman-respondent No. 2 was sent on deputation to the petitioner-Urban Improvement Trust, Kota from Larsen & Tubero. Therefore, his services could not have been treated as merged with the petitioner-Organisation. This aspect of the case has been meticulously dealt with by the learned Judge, Labour Court who is right in recording that although the workman-respondent No. 2 initially was sent on deputation with the petitioner, that was to exist only for a period of two months and thereafter he should have been repatriated to Larsen & Tubero. But the petitioner-Urban Improvement Trust without doing so and without any understanding or agreement to that effect with Larsen & Turbo, kept on extending the services of the workman-respondent No. 2 and thereafter, dispensed with his services on the ground that he was only on deputation with the petitioner-Urban Improvement Trust.

It is no doubt true that if the petitioner-Urban Improvement Trust had repatriated the workman-respondent No. 2 to his parent-Organisation immediately after two months, it would have been justified in saying that the services of the workman-respondent No. 2 cannot be imposed on the petitioner-Organisation, but as already stated, the services of the workman-respondent No. 2 was extended from time to time without any concurrence to that effect from the parent-Organisation i.e. Larsen & Tubero and it was not even informed to them that the services of the workman-respondent No. 2 are still being availed by the petitioner even after expiry of two months. Thus, the petitioner acted on its own and extended his services and thus created contractual relation with the workman-respondent No. 2. That having been done, the relationship of employer and employee was definitely created between the petitioner and the respondent and hence his services could not have been terminated without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and hence his reinstatement has rightly been ordered.

In so far as the grant of 25% of back wages is concerned, the same also if perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of this case as although the respondent perhaps could have claimed his entire back wages, only 25% wages have been granted.

The impugned award therefore, does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.