Back
GAURANG KANTH
SHYAMJI SRIVASTAVA – Appellant
Versus
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER-M-311 OF P. W. D. – Respondent
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 a
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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the examination of the employer-employee relationship and the maintainability of the application under Section 33(A) of the ID Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of the service conditions of employees was within the domain of the contractor, and the absence of evidence showing control ....
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 pr....
The burden of proof for continuous service of 240 days rests on the workman, and mere self-serving statements are insufficient to establish this claim.
[The judgment establishes that for contract workers to claim rights under employment law, they must prove an employer-employee relationship with the principal employer, which includes satisfying spec....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, the Industrial Tribunal can adjudicate upon the entitlement of the workman to receive benefit in terms o....
The burden of proving the employer-employee relationship lies on the workman, and the court cannot interfere with the Labour Court's findings unless they are perverse or based on no evidence.
The determination of employment relationships and the validity of contracts lies within the jurisdiction of the industrial adjudicator, particularly when claims of sham contracts are raised.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
