SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Jhk) 906

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH KUMAR, J.
M/s Karvy Stock Broking Limited – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(L) No.2255 of 2009
Decided on : 13-08-2019

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the Respondents:M/s Ramit Satender and K.K. Singh, Advocates

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 - Section 26 - Service in pursuance of appointment letter - Charge of misconduct - Respondent namely has been appointed as Office Boy Assistant in January on pay month and subsequently orally terminated from service - On such termination concerned workman has approached Superintendent for conciliation which has ultimately resulted in settlement - In terms settlement International has issued appointment letter in favour of respondent but he has not joined post rather approached authority under Section of Bihar Shops and Establishments Act along with limitation petition – Held, So far as expression control and supervision is concerned it has been settled by above judicial pronouncement - If contract is for supply of labour supplied by contractor will work directions supervision and control of principal employer but that would not make worker direct employee of principal employer if salary is paid by contractor if right to regulate employment is with contractor then ultimate supervision and control lies with contractor - Thus contractor is primary control and principal employer is secondary control - Admittedly in present case no evidence has been brought on record to substantiate claim of being employee of petitioner by employee - Only evidence has been brought is attendance register and oral evidence that he has been employed by petitioner - So far as attendance register is concerned it only proves regarding his working petitioner and it does not proof any parameter required for proving relationship of employer and employee even in oral evidence by employee it has been accepted that salary has been paid by contractor and not by petitioner – Petition disposed

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders dated 12.12.2008, 17.02.2009 and 26.05.2008 passed by the respondent No.2 in JSE Case No.1 of 2008 whereby present writ petitioner has been directed to reinstate the respondent No.5 with full back wages.

3. The respondent No.5-namely, Nilendu Kumar Patra, has been appointed as Office Boy/Assistant in January, 2005 on the pay of Rs.2276/- per month and subsequently, orally terminated from the service w.e.f. 5th July, 2006. On such termination, the concerned workman has approached the Labour Superintendent, Bokaro for conciliation (date has not been disclosed) which has ultimately resulted in settlement dated 06.09.2007. In terms of settlement, M/s Sunil International (Labour Supply Contractor of the petitioner) has issued an appointment letter dated 03.10.2007 in favour of the respondent No.5 but he has not joined the post rather approached the authority under Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 along with limitation petition. The said complaint has been registered as JSE Case No.1 of 2008. The factum of not joining the service in pursuance of the appointment letter dated 03.10.2007 has been communicated to the conciliator vide letter dated 12.12.2007.

4. Learned Deputy Labour Commissioner-respondent No.2, after considering the materials brought on record, vide order dated 12.12.2008, has directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent No.5 in service with full back wages. The delay in filing petition under Section 26 (supra) has been condoned vide order dated 26.05.2008. A review petition filed by the petitioner, has also been dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2009. All these orders have been challenged in the present writ petition.

5. Petitioner has taken plea of limitation and further non-existence of relationship of employer and employee. Both plea has been taken unsuccessfully before Deputy Labour Commissioner.

6. Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 is quoted hereinbelow:

26. Notice of the dismissal or discharge.-1[(1) No employer shall dismiss or discharge or otherwise terminate the employment of any employee who has been in his employment continuously for a period of not less than six months, except for a reasonable cause and after giving such employee at least one month’s notice or one month’s wages in lieu of such notice :

Provided that such notice shall not be necessary where the services of such employee are dispensed with on a charge of such misconduct as may be prescribed by the State Government, supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an enquiry held for the purpose:

Provided further that an employee who has been in continuous employment for a year or more and whose services are dispensed with otherwise than on a charge of misconduct shall also be paid compensation equivalent to fifteen days average wages for every completed year of service and any part thereof in excess of six months before his discharge in addition to the notice or pay in lieu of notice as prescribed above.]

[(2) Every employee, dismissed or discharged or whose employment is otherwise terminated, may make a complaint in writing in the prescribed manner, to a prescribed authority within 90 days of the receipt of the order of dismissal or discharge or termination of employment on the one or more of the following grounds, namely : —

(i) there was no reasonable cause for dispensing with his services; or

(ii) no notice was served on him as required by sub-section (1); or

(iii) he has not been guilty of any misconduct as held by the employer ; or

(iv) no compensation as prescribed in sub-section (1) was paid to him before dispensing with his service.]

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), where the order of dismissal or discharge was received by an employee at any time before the commencement of the Bihar Shops and Establishm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top