JUDGMENT

Arun Palli, J. - This is an intra-court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against an order and judgment dated 02.08.2018 rendered by the learned Single Judge, vide which the writ petition preferred by the appellant against the award passed by Labour Court, dated 08.11.2013, declining his claim has since been dismissed.

2. In brief, the case set out by the appellant has been that he joined the respondent-Corporation as Caretaker pursuant to a letter of appointment dated 12.06.1989. Initially, he was posted at LIC Guest House, Sector 8, Chandigarh, but after a period of 10 years, he was transferred to another Guest House of the respondent-Corporation in Sector 15D, Chandigarh. To begin with, he was appointed at a consolidated salary of Rs. 700/- per month, which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 2000/- in the year 1999. To circumvent the laws, as also to deprive the appellant of his rights that had since accrued while in service, a fresh appointment letter dated 01.06.2000 was issued by the respondent-Corporation which was nothing but a camouflage, to show that appellant was not its employee but merely a Contractor. In fact, to adjust one Surinder Singh Rana, the appellant was first transferred to LIC Guest House in Sector 15, Chandigarh and subsequently to accommodate his brother Sanjay the services of the appellant were terminated. Thus, apparently termination of services of the appellant was violative of the provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, he was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

3. In defence, it was pleaded by the respondent(s) that there never existed any relationship of an employee and an employer between the parties, for the appellant was merely a caretaker Contractor to whom the contract of attending the Guest House of the Corporation was awarded on a monthly payment of Rs. 700/-. To begin with, the contractual period was 12 months, which was extended from time to time. And, subsequently, he was assigned a contract in respect of another Guest House of the Corporation in Sector 15, Chandigarh. The contract between the parties was last extended on 01.06.2000 for a period of 12 months, which expired on 31.05.2001. In fact, inspection of the Guest House was conducted by the Committee on 27.05.2000 and since the appellant was found to have breached the terms of the contract and had committed serious irregularities, he was served with a show cause notice dated 31.05.2000 as to why his contract be not cancelled. And after obtaining his reply, which was not found to be satisfactory, a conscious decision was taken not to extend his contract after 31.05.2001.

4. Upon a consideration of the matter, the Labour Court reached a conclusion that although the appellant claimed to have been appointed as a Caretaker, pursuant to the letter of appointment dated 12.06.1989, but a perusal thereof showed that it was only a contract for attending the Guest House for a specific period on a consolidated amount of Rs. 700/- per month. Further, in terms of the said letter, he was required to attend the Guest House at all times and in his absence to depute some dependable person to remain in attendance. The claim of the appellant that vide letters Ex.M2 to Ex.M15, he had applied for leave on different occasions, which had since been granted by the respondent-Corporation, proved that he was in its employment, was hardly of any consequence as on each occasion he provided a substitute to attend the Guest House. Thus, in the circumstances, even if his leave was sanctioned that would not mean that he was an employee of the respondent-Corporation. The plea set out by the appellant that he was paid salary at DC rates was also rejected, as the documents on record showed that he was merely paid fixed consolidated amount of Rs. 700/-, which was raised to Rs. 2000/- on 01.06.2000. Further, just because subsequently the appellant was awarded a contra