Back
2001 Supreme(Guj) 842
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :K.M.MEHTA
Lakhtariya Premjibhai Narsinhbhai - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION 3479 of 2001
Decided On : 12/28/2001
Headnote:(a) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) — Sec. 10 — Reference of dispute to Labour Court — Power of appropriate Govt. — How and when to be exercised — Law laid down in Supreme Court judgment in Ajit Kumar Barats case reiterated and followed.
[See Paras 7.2 to 7.11]
(b) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947) — Secs. 2(s), 10, 25(F), 25(G) — Workman — Reference of industrial dispute — Existence of employer-employee relationship is sine qua non — In the present case, Central Govt. (Labour Commissioner) refused to refer the dispute regarding alleged termination on the ground that no employer-employee relationship existed — Impugned order found just and proper — No interference called for.
The order of the Central Government is completely in consonance with the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Barat and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of NDDB. In Court view the judgment of this Court in Hardesh Kumar (Supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts of the case and said decision is based on the peculiar facts of that case. Court does not see any infirmity in the reasoning of the Central Government. The Central Government has not considered any irrelevant or foreign material and, therefore, in Courts view the petition is required to be dismissed.
[Para 12]
( 1 ) LAKHTARIYA Premjibhai Narsinhbhai, petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 9. 3. 1999 passed by Ministry of Labour, Government of india. The Government of India by the said letter considered the report of Conciliation officer and opined that the Central Government is of the opinion that the dispute between petitioner-workman and IOC - respondent No. 2 is not for adjudication - industrial machinery on the ground:"there is no employer employee relationship between the workman and the IOC ltd. and hence no dispute".
( 2 ) THE present petition has been filed on 14th November, 2000, which has been placed for hearing before me on 2nd November, 2001.
( 3 ) LOOKING to the importance of the matter, I have requested Mr. D. N. Patel, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government to appear on behalf of Union of India and also requested Mr. Manish Bhatt, learned Advocate who normally appear on behalf of IOC. Both the learned Counsels have readily agreed to appear. Learned advocate for the petitioner as well as learned advocate for the respondents have addressed me at length and, therefore, I am deciding this petition accordingly.
( 4 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are as under : 4. 1 The petitioner was serving with the respondent No. 2-Indian Oil Corporation ltd. (hereinafter referred to as IOC) since many years. The petitioner was working in salaya Mathura Pipeline Project. The petitioner was working in the said project under the supervision and control of Senior Operation Manager of the Salaya Mathura pipeline Project. It appears that the services of the petitioner was orally terminated on 1. 7. 1997. 4. 2 It was the contention of the petitioner that petitioner had completed 240 days of continuous days and the services of the petitioner terminated orally without issuing notice under Sees. 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)- 4. 3 The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and made an application to the assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) informing him about an existing industrial dispute and further requesting him to intervene and start conciliation proceedings. The said representation was made somewhere in January, 1998. 4. 4 The respondent No. 2 also filed a reply in the said application. In the said application it was stated that there was no relationship of master and servant between petitioner and respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the said application is misconceived and not maintainable. It was stated that earlier petitioner had already filed two applications dated 11. 3. 1997 against respondent No. 2 before the Labour Court Ahmedabad and in that application it was prayed for interim relief. The said application was rejected on 12th March, 1997. 4. 5 It was further stated that petitioner was never engaged by respondent No. 2 and relationship of master and servant does not exists between respondent No. 2 and petitioner. All other contentions were denied by respondent No. 2 in this behalf. 4. 6 The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad, by its communication dated 25th May, 1998, addressed to the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi, and report of the failure of the conciliation proceedings between petitioner and respondent No. 2 and stated that every efforts have been made to bring about an amicable settlement between the parties but both the parties remained stuck to their respective claim and no settlement could be arrived at during conciliation. After the said report was sent to labour Commissioner, the Labour Commissioner by its communication dated 9. 3. 1999 which I have referred earlier that there is no employer employee relationship between the workman and the IOC Ltd.-respondent No. 2 and hence, no dispute.
( 5 ) MR. A. H. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner has raised various contentions in this behalf. However, before I consider his contention let me set out relevant sections in this behalf. Sectio
