The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cause of the Petitioners/Workmen must be properly espoused by the Union, and the existence of an employer-employee relationship must be proven to claim entitlement to benefits as regular employees.

JUDGMENT :

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. The Petitioners/Workmen in the present writ Petition are assailing the impugned Award dated 18.09.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkadooma Courts in I.D. No. 81/2004 (“impugned award”).

2. Learned Labour Court, vide the impugned Award, was pleased to hold that there was no employer-employee relationship between the Petitioners/Workmen and Respondent No. 1/Management. Learned Labour Court further held that the cause of the Petitioners/Workmen has not been espoused by the union.

FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION:

3. It is the case of the Petitioners/Workmen that they were working with Respondent No. 1/ Management from 1992, 1993 and 1998 onwards. It is their case that they were entitled for the enhanced salary, HRA, DA, washing of cloth allowance, cycle allowance, earned leave, casual leave, festival leave, Provident fund, ESI benefits, bonus and all other benefits at par with regular employees of Respondent No. 1/Management.

4. The appropriate Government referred the following industrial dispute to the learned Labour Court for adjudication:

“Whether the workmen (1) Sh. Omji Srivastava, S/o Sh. B.P. Srivastava, (2) Shri. Dinesh Kumar Srivastava S/o Sh. Har Sahai Srivastava (3) Shri Shyamji Srivastava S/o B.P. Srivastava (4) Manoj Srivastava S/o Sh. H.S. Srivastava are entitled to increase in wages from October, 2002 and cycle allowance and uniform and if so, to what directions are necessary in this regard?”

5. The Petitioners/Workmen filed their statement of claim stating that they were entitled for all the benefits as entitled to the regular employees of Respondent No. 1/Management. Respondent No. 1/Management filed detailed written statement denying the employer-employee relationship between the parties. It is the case of Respondent No. 1/ Management that they have awarded the contract for the security services to various contractors in accordance with law by way of tender process. The Petitioners/Workmen were employees of the said contractors. Respondent No. 1/Management categorically denied that any payment has ever made by Respondent No. 1/Management to the Petitioners/Workmen.

6. Respondent No. 2 (Contractor) failed to appear before the learned Labour Court despite service. Hence Respondent No. 2 was proceeded exparte.

7. Based on the pleading of the parties, the learned Labour Court framed the following issues:

“(i) Whether the cause of the workmen has been duly espoused? (OPW)

(ii) Whether the relationship of employer-employee is in existence in the present dispute? (OPW)

(iii) Whether the Management is not an Industry? (OPM)

(iv) Whether the Claimants are entitled for increase in wages from October, 2002? (OPW)

(v) Whether the Claimant are entitled for cycle allowance? (OPW)

(vi) Whether the Claimants are entitled for uniform? (OPW)

(vii) In terms of reference.”

8. In order to prove the case, the Petitioners/Workmen stepped into the witness box as WW-1, WW-2, WW-3 and WW-4. On behalf of Respondent No. 1/Management, Mr. R.K Gupta, Executive Engineer, PWD Division-VI, Nangloi was examined as MW-1.

9. Based on the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Labour Court concluded that the cause of the Petitioners/Workmen has not been duly espoused. Hence, Issue no. 1 was decided against the Petitioners/Workmen. Learned Labour Court further held that the Petitioners/Workmen failed to prove that there was any employer-employee relationship between the Petitioners/Workmen and Respondent No. 1/Management. In view of the said finding learned Labour Court answered the reference in negative by holding that the Petitioners/Workmen are not entitled for increase in wages, cycle allowance and uniform.

10. Being aggrieved by the impugned Award, the Petitioner preferred the present Writ Petition. Despite service, there was no appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 2 (Contractor) in the present proceedings.

SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS/WORKMEN

11. Lear