( 1 ) BY this writ petition, employer Maharashtra Industrial Development corporation has challenged the order dated 17-9-1999 passed by respondent No. l Member, industrial Court in Revision U. L. P. 397/1994 whereby the Member Industrial Court reversed the judgment delivered by Labour Court in u. L. P. complaint 39/1991. The Labour Court, chandrapur dismissed complaint under Section 28 read with schedule IV (1) of Maharashtra recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (referred to as U. L. P. Act hereafter) preferred by present respondent No. 2 Anant (Anand?) challenging his termination from 20-12-1990 by Petitioners while Industrial Court directed Petitioners to reinstate him with continuity and back wages. This Court has stayed said order of Industrial court.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 approached labour Court on 18-2-1991 with grievance that he was employed by Petitioners as Driver from 24-9-1988 and he worked up to 19-12-1990 regularly. On 20-12-1990 when he went to join duties, he was not permitted to work and he claimed that he was orally terminated. He challenged this termination as not in good faith but in colurable exercise of his powers by employer, as victimisation and with undue haste without following principles of natural justice. He asserted that he has worked for more than 240 working days continuously and uninterruptedly during one calender year. The petitioner filed their reply and denied that respondent No. 2 was their employee and he worked under various contractors on ratelist basis. They contended that quotations for supply of Labour for one month used to be invited from various contractors and lowest quotation used to be accepted for one month. Such ratelist used to expire at the end of month and there was no relationship of employer and employee between parties. Completion of 240 days continuously by respondent No. 2 was also denied. They also contended that because of absence of relationship of any kind, it was not necessary to give one month notice or salary in lieu thereof to respondent No. 2. The parties lead evidence and Labour Court found that there was no appointment order or termination order and relationship itself was in dispute. It appreciated the oral evidence and the documents on record and found that respondent no. 2 was not successful in showing that he was directly engaged by Petitioners. In view of this finding, it dismissed the complaint.

( 3 ) THE Industrial Court has however reversed this finding of Labour Court observing that it did not properly consider the oral and documentary evidence in the light of material pleadings and hence, conclusion reached by Labour Court was wrong. It found that Labour Court directed Petitioners to produce Outward and Inward Registrar but said order was not properly complied with and hence Labour Court should have drawn adverse inference. It has thereafter considered the Xerox documents produced by respondent no. 2 before Labour Court in detail and found that Labour Court was not justified in expecting respondent No. 2 to produce payment vouchers or attendance registers. It held that the Labour Court erred in rejecting genuine oral and documentary evidence produced by respondent No. 2. According to it even if respondent No. 2 was presumed to be in employment of contractor, still petitioner, being principal employer could not have avoided its responsibility. It therefore set aside his oral termination and directed petitioner to reinstate him with continuity and back wages.

( 4 ) I have heard Advocate M. M. Agnihotri for Petitioner, Advocate J. L Boot for respondent No. 2 employee and learned agp for respondent No. l.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner Shri. Agnihotri has contended that the learned Member of Industrial Court has exceeded jurisdiction on two counts. First according to him, the moment relationship was shown in dispute, the U. L. P. Complaint itself ought to have been held to be not maintainable and in s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document