The court emphasized the importance of proving the existence of an employer-employee relationship and highlighted the limited jurisdiction of the court in examining the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.

JUDGMENT :

GAURANG KANTH, J.

1. The Petitioners/Workmen in the present writ Petition is assailing the impugned Award dated 29.03.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XIII, Karkadooma Courts, Delhi, in ID No. 420/2006 (“impugned award”).

2. Learned Labour Court, vide the impugned Award, was pleased to hold that the Petitioners/Workmen were not employees of Respondent No. 1/Management and that there was no employer-employee relationship between the Petitioners/Workmen and Respondent No. 1/Management.

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 at their office at PWD Division-6, Sub Division-4, Road No. 28, Raja Garden, Delhi for the past 11-12 years as Chowkidars. They were employed by Respondent No. 1/ Management through Respondent No. 3 (Contractor). Their services were terminated earlier. However, pursuant to the orders of the conciliation officer dated 01.10.2002, Mr. M.L Azad, Assistant Engineer, PWD Division-6, Sub Division-4, Road No. 28, Raja Garden, Delhi reinstated them back in service on 04.10.2002. They remained in service till 04.02.2003 and were not allowed to work w.e.f. 05.02.2003.

4. In these circumstances, the Petitioners/Workmen raised an Industrial Dispute before the Conciliation officer. On failure of the conciliation proceedings, the appropriate Government referred the following reference to the Labour Court for adjudication:

“Whether the services of Sh. Shyamji Srivastava S/o Sh. B.P. Srivastava and Sh. Omji Srivastava S/o Sh. B.P. Srivastava have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

5. The Petitioners/Workmen filed their statement of claim before the learned Labour Court reiterating their case as presented before the Conciliation Officer. Respondent No. 1/ Management has filed its reply before the learned Labour Court. In the said reply, Respondent No. 1/Management denied the existence of employer-employee relationship between the Petitioners/Workmen and Respondent No. 1/Management. It is the case of Respondent No. 1/Management that Respondent No. 3 was its registered and approved licensed Contractor. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1/Management awarded the contract for security services to Respondent No. 3/Contractor through tendering process. The Petitioners/Workmen were employees of Respondent No. 3/Contractor and Respondent No. 1/Management has no privity of contract with the Petitioners/Workmen.

6. Respondent No. 3 (M/s. Indian Industrial Security Co. (P) Ltd.) failed to appear before the learned Labour Court despite service. Hence, Respondent No. 3 was proceeded as ex-parte before the learned Labour Court.

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

“1. Whether the services of the workmen have been terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the management?

2. Whether there is no relationship of employer-employee between the parties?

3. Relief.”

8. In order to prove their case, the Petitioner/Workman No. 1 stepped into the witness box as WW-1 and the Petitioner/Workman No. 2 stepped into the witness box as WW-2. On behalf of Respondent No. 1/Management, Mr. A.K Saini, Executive Engineer was examined as MW-1.

9. Learned Labour Court based on the evidence adduced by the parties concluded that the Petitioners/Workmen were not employees of Respondent No. 1/Management. In view of the said finding, learned Labour Court answered the reference in negative and dismissed the claim petition filed by the Petitioners/Workmen.

10. Being aggrieved by the impugned Award, the Petitioners/Workmen preferred the present Writ Petition.

11. Despite service, there was no appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 3 (Contractor) in the present proceedings.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS/WORKMEN

12. Learned counsel for the Petitioners/W