IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of a proven employer-employee relationship and valid grounds for termination justified the rejection of the reinstatement petition.

JUDGMENT :

(M.K. Thakker, J.)

1. This petition is filed under Article 226 & 227 of Constitution of India challenging the award passed by the learned labour court, Bhavnagar in reference LCB No.104 of 2014 whereby, the reference filed by the respondent herein, seeking reinstatement to his original post came to be rejected.

2. It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner was working under the control and supervision of the respondent No.1 and he was paid monthly salary through the respondent No.2. He was discharging the duty of maintenance and fault repair for the respondent No.2-Gram Panchayat and Vallabhipur Taluka. He was treated as a helper Class-IV employee since the date of appointment I.e 1980 till 24.05.2013 i.e. the date of termination. The wages were paid under the nomenclature of Vijadi Gar i.e. helper on discharging the duties before the respondent No.2. As per the claim of the petitioner he was discharging his duty under the instructions issued by Officer of respondent No.1 and was working under the supervision and control of respondent No.1.

3. It is alleged that without following due procedure under the act, his services were terminated with effect from 24.05.2013 and though the respondent No.1 is Principle employer of the petitioner, learned labour court, while dismissing the reference has held that there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.1. It is further held by the learned labour court in the impugned award that as it is contended by the present petitioner that there is no relationship of employee and employer between the present petitioner and respondent No.2, therefore in absence of establishing of relationship between the petitioner and the respondent, the claim of the petitioner is required to be refused. In addition to the above, learned labour court has further held that as the petitioner was found to have been involved in the theft of electricity and he has given confession and paid the penalty with regard to the same, his services were immediately terminated with effect from 24.05.2013 and therefore, reference which was filed for reinstatement was awarded against the present petitioner which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

4. Heard learned advocate Ms.Reena Kamani and learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar on advance copy.

5. Learned advocate Ms.Kamani submits that petitioner was appointed as a class-IV post from the year 1980 under the supervision and control of respondent No.1 and has been issued a gate pass and was allotted the material by the respondent No.1 which was produced below Exh.21 to 105. However, learned labour court though it was admitted by the respondent No.1 that the gate passes were issued by the respondent No.1, comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is not an employee of respondent No.1. Learned advocate Ms.Kamani submits that if he was only an employee to respondent No.1, then as per the admission made by the present petitioner he worked in the surrounding village of Mud Dharai Gram Panchayat which is beyond the territory of Gram Panchayat and therefore, also learned labour court has committed error in holding that there is no employee-employer relationship between the present petitioner and respondent No.1.

5.1. Learned advocate Ms.Kamani submits that undue weightage was given to the confession which was made by the present petitioner without having proved the charge against the same and in that background also impugned order deserves to be set aside. Learned advocate Ms.Kamani relies on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Hussainbhai, Calicut Vs. Alath Factory Thozhilali Union, Kozhikode And Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 1410 and submitted that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court, the employer and employee relation is to be examined. In view of the fact that the workman worked under the supervision and control of employer, here in the instant case undisputedly the present petitioner