The employment of contract labour in textile mills had been prohibited by the State Government under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and therefore, the petitioner's claim that respondent No. 3 was employed by a contractor could not be accepted.

R. R. K. TRIVEDI, J.

In both the aforesaid writ petitions, petitioner and respondent No. 3 in the first petition and respondent No. 4 in the second petition are common. Both the writ petitions thus can be decided by a common order against which learned counsel for the parties have no ob jection. Writ Petition No. 1351 of 1996 shall be the leading case.

2. Facts giving rise to the aforesaid two petitions are that respondent No. 3 Ram Singh raised industrial dispute with regard to termination of his employment from the petitioner mill with effect from 1-11- 1991. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the State Government vide order dated 22-9- 1993, under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( here in after referred to as the Act ). In the Labour Court this case was registered as Adjudication Case No. 151 of 1993. Before the Labour Court both the parties appeared and filed written statement. Case of respon dent No. 3 was that on knowing that in the petitioner mill there is a need of some workmen, he made an application in the month of March, 1990 for being employed. On 1- 5-1990, he was employed in the mill under some contractor. Since then respon dent No. 3 continuously worked on the post though contractors used to change. His at tendance was recorded in Form 12 and salary was paid to him by the contractor or his clerk-cum- cashier through voucher. After fourteen months he was made mem ber of the E. S. I. and Provident Fund. He discharged the duties of providing drinking water during the summer and in other season work was taken from him in other departments of the Mill. When respondent No. 3 raised a demand for payment of regular wages like other employees, he was terminated from service by an oral order from 1-11-1991 in violation of the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act. Respondent No. 3 claimed reinstatement on me post with full back wages.

3. Petitioners case, on the other hand, was that respondent No. 3 was not employed in the Mill on 31- 10-1991 or before that date and the order of reference is wholly er roneous and liable to be set aside. Respon dent NO- 3 was never under employment of the Mill and there was no question of ter mination of his services. The State Govern ment has made reference without applica tion of mind. Respondent No. 3 was never employed by the management of the mill and there is no relationship of employer and employee between petitioner and respon dent No. 3 and alleged termination has not given rise to any

industrial disputes. Under the provisions of the Act, respondent No. 3 is not a workman. In this case petitioner has been wrongly impleaded as a party. Copy of the written statement has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Both petitioner and respondent No. 3 adduced oral and documentary evidence. The Labour Court after hearing parties gave award dated 4-9-1995 in favour of respon dent No. 3 and directed reinstatement treat ing him as employee of the Mill with proper wages and other facilities and also awarded 50 per cent of the back wages during the period respondent No. 3 was out of job. Aggrieved by this award petitioner has filed writ petition No. 1351 of 1996. In this peti tion, counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

4. In pursuance of the aforesaid award dated 4-9-1995, workman Ram Singh filed an application under Section 6-H (1) of the Act for enforcing the award. On this ap plication a notice was issued to petitioner. Petitioner filed objection that against the impugned award writ petition has been filed in this court in which interim order dated 1-3-1996 has been passed and the operation of the award has been stayed up to 31-3-1996. However, as the extension of the in terim order passed by this Court after 31-3-1996 could not be filed by petitioner, respondent No. 1 Deputy Labour Commis sioner, passed order dated 4- 7-1996 under Section 6-H (1) of the Act for recovery of the amount of Rs. 32, 764. 10 p. from pet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document