Advocates appeared :
For the Appellant : N. K. Gupta, Ravi Shankar Gupta, S. D. Bhadoriya
For the Respondent : Sankalp Sharma, G. P. Chaurasiya

ORDER ANAND PATHAK, J. : – Regard being had to similitude of controversy, all the review petitions are heard and decided by this common order.

2. For convenience sake, facts as narrated in Review Petition No. 526/2021 are taken into consideration. Instant review petition has been preferred seeking review/recall of the order dated 28-4-2021 passed in Writ Appeal No. 457/2020 by which this Court while hearing the appeal preferred by respondent No. 2-National Health Mission partly allowed the appeal and modified the order dated 29-11-2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 2677/2018 by learned Writ Court whereby the petition preferred by respondent No. 2/National Health Mission against the order dated 31-1-2018 passed by the Legal Authority under Minimum Wages Act (Labour Court No. 1), Gwalior has been dismissed.

3. In this bunch of review petitions, Review Petition No. 642/20, 643/20, 645/20, 646/20, 647/20, 648/20, 649/20, 650/20, 651/20 and 652/20 originate from common order dated 29-5-2020 passed by Coordinate Bench in bunch of writ appeals preferred by review petitioner-M/s Zigitza Health Care Ltd. subject matter was same and arose out of the order passed by Writ Court. In those writ appeals, all grounds were raised by the present review petitioner which are being raised in this review petition.

4. Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 herein i.e. National Health Mission, is a body created for providing better health services and assistance to the State Authorities to outreach Medical Health Services in each and every part of the State. Under the aegis of respondent No. 2, various different programmes are being run through Public Private Partnership, particulars of which are given in the petition. These various programmes/ schemes are being run with an agreement with review petitioner-Zigitza Health Care Ltd. and it is the said entity which carries out the activities.

5. Respondent No. 1 is an employee of respondent No. 2 and at the relevant point of time was working as Emergency Medical Technician since 21-10-2016.

6. It appears from pleadings that respondent No. 1/employee worked for 12 hours for a certain period of time and payment was made only for 8 hours, therefore, he preferred an application under section 20 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (in short “the Act of 1948”) before the Court below (Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior, as Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act) with the allegation that respondent No. 2 has not paid him overtime, therefore, payment be made under the Act of 1948. Employee referred the calculation of amount to the tune of Rs. 1,02,100/- with ten times penalty. Present review petitioner was made party as respondent No. 1 in the said case wherein respondent No. 2/NHM preferred reply, whereas present review petitioner-Zigitza Health Care Ltd. did not prefer to file any reply.

7. It was the case of respondent No. 2/NHM before the Court below that since no agreement exists between appellant and respondent No. 2/NHM, therefore, no employer-employee relationship exists and he is the employee of respondent No. 1-Zigitza Health Care Ltd., therefore, respondent No. 2 is not responsible for such payment. Responsibility lies over present review petitioner. Respondent No. 2/NHM referred the scheme and Request for Proposal (RFP) executed between the parties and categorically submitted in its reply that responsibility lies over present review petitioner.

8. Evidence was led in which employee/respondent No. 1 appeared in the witness-box and was cross-examined by the present review petitioner as well as respondent No. 2. After considering the rival submissions and evidence on record, Court below passed the impugned order dated 31-1-2018 whereby employee was found to be entitled for payment of overtime to the tune of Rs. 1,02,100/- with Rs. 10,000/- as penalty. It was observed by the Labour Court that relationship of principal employee appears to exist between respondents No. 1 and 2.

9. Against