Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The writ petition is directed against the award dated 30.11.1990 passed by Labour Court (V) U.P., Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 170 of 1986 holding termination of Sri Jodha Ram from 1.8.1884 to be illegal and unjust. It has further directed the petitioners to reemploy Sri Jodha Ram forthwith and pay entire arrears of salary and other benefits of service within one month besides cost of Rs. 150/-.

2. The respondent No. 3, Sri Jodha Ram, raised an industrial dispute that he was illegally terminated by the petitioners. The said dispute was referred for adjudication by respondent No. 2 in exercise of power under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘U.P.I.D. Act’). The following reference was made :

^^vkS+|ksfxd fookn dk fooj.k&

^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed tks/kkjke vkRet lq[kyky gsYij dh lsok;sa fnukad 1-8-1984 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS\ ;fn ugha] rks lacaf/kr Jfed D;k ykHk@{kfriwfrZ ¼fjyhQ½ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS rFkk vU; fdl fooj.k lfgr\^^

3. The respondent No. 2 filed his written statement alleging that he was continuously working in the petitioner’s establishment since 1975 in various Departments. He discharged the duty of helper.

4. In violation of the relevant provisions and without following the prescribed procedure, he has been terminated illegally on 1.8.1984. The petitioners filed a written statement raising a preliminary objection that the workman Jodha Ram was never employed by petitioner Establishment nor was terminated. There existed no relationship of master and employee between them. The respondent No. 3 infact was engaged by one M/s Super Builders (civil contractor) office at 113/69 Swaroop Nagar, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Contractor’) for some job of civil nature. The said contractor was not party in the aforesaid adjudication. The petitioner-company engaged in the manufacture and sale of chemical fertilizers had employed its own workers by issuing appointment letters, identity cards, wage slips etc. The petitioner company in addition to its labour force also engaged certain job contractors for specified jobs of intermittent nature from time to time. For some time a contract of civil nature was awarded to the contractor M/s Super Builders and respondent No. 3 having been engaged by the said contractor cannot claim any relief against the petitioner as there is no relationship of employer and employee between them.

5. In the rejoinder-affidavit filed by petitioner in reply to the written statement of respondent No. 3 before Labour Court, again the facts denying relationship, i.e., of employer and employee with respondent No. 3 were stated in detail. It is also said that since the respondent No. 3 was employed by the contractor, petitioner-company has no particulars and other details and in absence of contractor, being not a party impleaded, the workman must furnish better particulars about his employment.

6. The respondent No. 3 also filed rejoinder-affidavit in reply to the written statement of petitioner stating that the documents relating to contract of civil nature awarded to contractor are forged and fictitious. No contract was awarded. He was appointed by the petitioner and also terminated by it.

7. The petitioner in support of his claim filed photo-copy of wage attendance register of the contractor for the period of January 1980 to December 1981 which were maintained by contractor showing name of respondent No. 3 therein. An application was also filed requesting the Labour Court to summon original record from the contractor. The said contractor, however, did not appear.

8. The workman Jodha Ram himself appeared in the witness-box and deposed his statement. He admitted that he was never issued any identity card of M/S IEL (India) Limited. He disputed his thumb impression, photo-copy on the wage and attendance register of the contractor produced by petitioner for the period January 1980