The judgment emphasizes the importance of genuine denial in employment disputes and highlights the need for substantial evidence to establish contractor relationships.

JUDGMENT - R.J. KOCHAR, J.:---The petitioner is aggrieved by the Award dated 16-1-1999 passed by the 12th Labour Court at Mumbai in Reference (I.D.A.) No. 653 of 1993 made by the State Government for adjudication of an Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service with effect from 15-6-1992. The Labour Court has rejected the reference by the impugned award.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was in employment of the respondent company as a Pressman from 1989. On and from 15-6-1997 he was not allowed to joint his duties and was orally told that his services were no more required. No orders in writing were passed. It appears that on 13-8-1992 the petitioner approached through its union the respondent company for reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. There was no reply to the said letter sent by the union. The petitioner therefore approached the Commissioner of Labour for intervention in the dispute which was finally referred by the State Government for adjudication after the failure of the conciliation proceedings. Both the parties as usual completed their proceedings and filed their documents and adduced oral and documentary evidence.

3. Before the Labour Court it was the case of the petitioner workman that he was in employment of the respondent company as a Pressman from 1989 and he was illegally terminated from employment from 15-6-1992 without giving any reason and in contravention of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was the case of the respondent company that the petitioner was never in its employment, and therefore, there was no employer employee relationship between them and therefore there was no dispute or an industrial dispute which existed to be referred and to be adjudicated by the Labour Court. The employer has mentioned in its written statement that it had reliably learnt that the petitioner was in employment of one M/s. Kamlesh Ironing as an Ironer and Shri Dhudnath was the Proprietor of the said firm. In the aforesaid circumstances the employer has denied any responsibility to reinstate the petitioner. The respondent company has also contended that the petitioner had lodged a false complaint against the company and that the conciliation proceedings were also bad in law. The petitioner examined himself and has averred on oath all the facts which he had narrated in his statement of claim. He has denied on oath that he was not employed by the respondent company and that he was employed under M/s. Kamlesh Ironing. He has in fact said that he was not knowing any Kamlesh Ironing. He did not have any documentary evidence to show that he was an employee of the respondent company. He has, however, relied on some letters received by him from his native place at the address of the respondent company. It further appears that respondent company examined only its Time Keeper who was employed from June 1992 and was not in employment when the petitioner was employed. He has therefore, only expressed his ignorance about the termination of the petitioner from employment. The Time Keeper in cross examination admitted that the business of the respondent company was of exporting ready made garments and that Iron and press of such garment was an integral part of production and was of perennial nature. The respondent company has examined its own witness one Shri Dhudnath Kanojia, who claimed to be a Contractor working for the respondent company from 1976-77 and from 1986 (he has given both these years). According to him he was doing the work of pressing of the stitched garments of the respondent company on contract basis. He however, denied the fact that he had terminated the petitioner from employment. According to him, the petitioner left the employment in the year 1991. It is his case that he was the Proprietor of his firm Kamlesh Ironing. The witness tried to say that he was Supervising the work of the petitioner and t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document