JUDGMENT :

1. The present Special Civil Application impugns the judgment and award dated 20.11.2007 passed by the learned Labour Court, Jamnagar in Reference (LCJ) No.1512 of 1990.

2. The brief facts of the present Special Civil Application are as under:-

2.1 It is the case of the respondent workman that he was working with the petitioner company since last 2½ years as Khalasi and that on 15.9.1988, his services came to be terminated abruptly without following any due procedure of law. It is further the case of the workman that while his services came to be terminated, his juniors were continued in service and that thereafter also, the petitioner company had recruited new people.

2.2 Aggrieved by the said termination, the respondent workman raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamnagar, who by order dated 10.1.1989, made a reference to the learned Labour Court, Jamnagar as to whether the termination of the services of the workman were in accordance with law.

2.3 The petitioner filed his statement of claim alleging that his termination was illegal and prayed for reinstatement with continuity of service.

2.4 The learned Labour Court was pleased to issue notice to the petitioner who appeared and filed their written statement at Exh.10. The petitioner herein also moved an application to join the respondent No.2 herein as a respondent in the reference before the learned Labour Court. The said application came to be allowed and the respondent No.2 came to be added as a party respondent in the reference proceedings. It was the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 workman was not its employee and that he was working for the respondent No.2 company who was given a contract for construction and erection of the project of power plant.

2.5 That the respondent No.2 company appeared before the learned Labour Court and filed its reply. In the said reply, it denied that the workman was its employee. It was submitted that the workman was not its employee and was the employee of the petitioner herein and that the respondent No.2 company was not concerned with the termination of the respondent No.1 workman.

2.6 All the parties led evidence in support of their case. After perusing the evidence on record and hearing the learned advocates for the parties, the learned Labour Court by award dated 20.11.2007 allowed the reference and directed that the respondent No.1 workman be reinstated in service along with 20% back wages. The learned Labour Court also further came to the conclusion that the respondent No.2 company had been wrongly joined by the petitioner herein in the proceedings and therefore, imposed a cost of Rs.1,000/- to be paid to the respondent No.2 company.

2.7 Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application.

3. Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 workman was not its employee. He submits that the erstwhile Board of the petitioner company had given the contract of the Sikka Power Plant to respondent No.2 and accordingly, the respondent No.1 workman was working with the petitioner as an employee of the respondent No.2. He submits that in respect of the said contention, the petitioner company had adduced cogent evidence on record by way of oral as well as documentary evidence to prove beyond doubt that the respondent No.1 workman was not its employee. He submitted that the petitioner company had examined its officers as well as 2 workmen to establish that the respondent No.1 workman was an employee of the respondent No.2 company. He submits that the witnesses for the petitioner company - Mr. K.B.Pushpam and Mr. Sazid who are its employees had deposed in their oral evidence that the respondent No.1 workman was working with the respondent No.2 company on the project site. They have further deposed that earlier before joining the petitioner company, both these witnesses