The petitioner, claiming to be an employee of the respondent-Company, has filed the above writ petition seeking to quash the impugned award dated 15.09.2008 passed by the III Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru in I.D No.71/2000 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits, full back wages with interest and etc.

2. It is case of the petitioner that he was appointed in the year 1981 as an operator in the Hardening department of respondent-Company and he served as such till the date of termination i.e., 13.11.1999. He has filed a petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act to set aside the order of termination and to direct the respondent to reinstate him with all consequential benefits like full back wages with interest. The same came to be rejected on 15.11.2008.

3. During pendency of the petition, petitioner retired from service. Hence he seeks only monetary benefits by nominal reinstating him into the service. The grounds urged by the petitioner is that he has served for more than 19 years, he has produced the attendance register and salary slip. The respondent has not complied any of the provisions of the I.D Act, while terminating his services. To satisfy the fact that he was working for more than 19 years in the respondent-Company, he had examined himself as WW1 and other two witnesses as WW2 and WW3 and marked documents as per Ex.W1 to W15, namely PF annual statement, ESI card, copies of attendance registers, salary slips, PF statement, copies of non remarriage certificate, order of appointment and copy of PF statement. The petitioner in the written statement has stated that he was appointed by the respondent and not by the contractor.

4. The respondent to prove its case has examined 3 witnesses MW1 to MW3, MW1 and MW3 are main witnesses and MW2 is the contractor and has marked 17 documents namely two bills, copy of the license, copy of attendance register, copy of payment register, bills, attendance registers and wage registers.

5. Initially the petitioner was appointed by the contractor Vijaya Engineering and the salary was paid by that contractor. Subsequently the contractors were changed to Hemadri and Shiva Shakthi Enterprises. These contractors were relatives of the Directors of the respondent Company. They were only name lending contractors. Hence they have been paid salary and PF, only by the respondent and they were under direct supervision of the respondent and their services were perennial in nature. Under these circumstances the counsel submits that the rejection of petition by the Labour Court on 15.11.2008 is contrary and finding that there is no employer and employee relationship is erroneous.

6. Petitioner has been examined as WW1 and he filed an evidence by way of affidavit and reiterated the pleading in his deposition and deposed that initially he was appointed as operator by Vijaya Engineering and thereafter he continued his work in respondent department and paid salary etc., He has also examined another witness WW2 by name N. Shankaraiah. In his affidavit witness WW2 has deposed that the petitioner was working from 1981 as operator in 714 C in Hardening department. “The Hardening department is our neighbour department. The nature of work, he was doing were perennial one. Without Hardening department, the manufacturing process cannot be completed. He had never worked in the Garvebhavipalya Branch”. Similarly the evidence of WW3 also supported the case of the petitioner and it is further submitted that there are about three contractors working for the 2nd party-respondent. Initially through Vijaya Engineering contractor he got appointed but thereafter the services were continued and as per evidence of WW2 and WW3, the services were perennial in nature and also he relies on the evidence of MW2. In his cross examination he has stated that petitioner was appointed by the Vijaya Engineering in the year 1981 and