Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GAURANG KANTH, J.
MANOJ SRIVASTAVA – Petitioner
Versus
PWD/CPWD – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 4385 of 2010
Decided On : 17-03-2023
ID Act - Industrial Disputes - Section 33(A) - 1947 - Summary of Acts and Sections: ID Act, Section 33(A) - The court dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner/Workman under Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court held that the Petitioner/Workman was not an employee of the Respondent No. 1/Management and that his termination was not effected by the Respondent No. 1/Management.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioner/Workman was engaged as a Chowkidar by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Contractors) and was deputed at the premises of Respondent No. 1/Management (PWD). The Petitioner/Workman claimed to have been terminated by Respondent No. 1/Management during the pendency of an industrial dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioner/Workman was not an employee of Respondent No. 1/Management and that there was no employer-employee relationship between them. The court dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner/Workman under Section 33 of the ID Act.
Issues: The issues framed by the court were: 1. Whether the applicant is an employee of the management No. 1 - PWD? 2. Whether the management No. 1 terminated the services of the applicant? 3. Relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Petitioner/Workman failed to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship with Respondent No. 1/Management. The court also emphasized that the determination of the service conditions of the employees was exclusively within the domain of the contractor, and there was no evidence to show that Respondent No. 1/Management had any control in this regard.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the present Writ Petition, finding no perversity or illegality in the impugned Award.
JUDGMENT :
GAURANG KANTH, J.
1. The Petitioner/Workman in the present writ Petition is assailing the impugned Award dated 19.08.2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II, Karkadooma Courts, Shahdara, Delhi in complaint case no. 01/2006 (“impugned award”).
2. Learned Labour Court, vide the impugned Award, was pleased to dismiss the Application filed by the Petitioner/Workman under Section 33(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”). Learned Labour Court was pleased to hold that the Petitioner/Workman was not an employee of the Respondent No. 1/Management. Learned Labour Court further held that the Petitioner/Workman's termination was not effected by the Respondent No. 1/Management as he was not an employee of the Respondent No. 1/ Management.
FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION:
3. The Petitioner/Workman was engaged as a Chowkidar by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Contractors) and was deputed at the premises of Respondent No. 1/Management (PWD). It is the case of the Petitioner/Workman that he was engaged w.e.f. 02.01.1993 and was terminated w.e.f. 09.07.2005.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner/Workman that earlier the Secretary (Labour) NCT of Delhi referred an Industrial dispute between the parties to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication (vide order No. F. 24(4598)/2003/Lab dated 12.05.2004) with the following term of reference:
5. It is the case of the Petitioner/Workman that during the pendency of the said industrial dispute, Respondent No. 1/Management terminated his service. In view of the same, the Petitioner/Workman filed an Application under Section 33(A) of the ID Act before the learned Labour Court.
6. The Petitioner/Workman in the said Application averred that he has been performing his duties under the direct control and supervision of Assistant Engineer, Sub-Division No. 1 and Junior Engineer attached with the P.W.D. Division No. 6 of Respondent No. 1/Management. He further averred that the duty of Respondent No. 2/contractor was only to supply the labour force and they were acting as an agent of Respondent No. 1/ management. It is the case of the Petitioner/Workman that he has already completed more than 240 days of service with Respondent No. 1/management. However, Respondent No. 1/management terminated his service without following the mandatory conditions of Section 25F and Section 33 of the ID Act. In view of the violation of the mandatory provisions of the ID Act, the Petitioner/Workman prays for reinstatement with full back wages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.
7. Respondent No. 2 (M/s. Indian Industrial Security Co. (P) Ltd.) failed to appear before the learned Labour Court despite service. Hence, Respondent No. 2 was proceeded ex-parte by the learned Labour Court.
8. Respondent No. 1/Management has filed their reply before the learned Labour Court. In the said reply, Respondent No. 1/management denied the existence of employer-employee relationship between the Petitioner/Workman and Respondent No. 1/Management. It is the case of Respondent No. 1/Management that Respondent No. 2 was their registered and approved licensed Contractor and was therefore awarded the contract for security services. The Petitioner/Workman was an employee of Respondent No. 2/Contractor. The Respondent No. 1/Management had no privity of contract with the Petitioner/Workman. Respondent No. 1/Management denied that it violated any provisions of the ID Act or Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
9. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Labour Court framed the following issues:
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 the examination of the employer-employee relationship and the maintainability of the application under Section 33(A) of the ID Act.
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 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 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 proof for continuous service of 240 days rests on the workman, and mere self-serving statements are insufficient to establish this claim.
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.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide disputed facts under Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act when there is no employer-employee relations....
The court affirmed that non-compliance with contractor licensing does not negate the employer-employee relationship, emphasizing control and direct employment evidence.
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
