A party must establish an employer-employee relationship with proper evidence to succeed in claims under the Industrial Disputes Act.

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

2. Present petition is filed impugning the award dated 03.09.2013 passed by III Additional Labour Court at Bangalore in Ref. No.13/2011.

3. In all, 10 persons made a claim under Section

10(1)(C)(D) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming reinstatement to the alleged employment under the first respondent which is admittedly a partnership firm. Second respondent is said to be one of the partners of the said firm. The reference petition is rejected by the Labour Court in terms of the impugned order. Out of 10 persons who sought reference, only 7 are before this Court. Rest of them have not questioned the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the records produced by the petitioners to substantiate their contention that they were working under first respondent firm are not considered and erroneously rejected. The certificates at Annexures-Ex.W1, Ex.W5, Ex.W15, Ex.W21 would establish the relationship of employer and employee between the petitioners and first respondent. He would contend that the Labour Court erred in rejecting the said application on the premise that the documents are inadmissible in evidence as they are the xerox copies. She would urge that the impugned order has to be set aside and the petitioners are to be reinstated.

5. Learned counsel appearing for first respondent would contend that the relationship of employer and employee is not established. The Labour Court has rightly rejected the reference for want of evidence to establish the contention that the petitioners were the employees of first respondent. The Labour Court has rightly held that the documents produced are the xerox copies and the same are inadmissible in evidence.

6. In addition, it is also urged that one of the partners of the first respondent firm had issued letters in favour of the petitioners without any authority and that too after exiting from the partnership firm and the said letters do not establish the relationship of employer and employee. 7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. The following point arises for consideration:-

i) Whether the petitioners established that the Labour Court has ignored the material evidence on record and erroneously rejected the petition so as to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India?

8. This Court has perused the reasons assigned by the Labour Court. Admittedly, in this case, no letter of appointments have been produced by the petitioners. It is also noticed that original salary slip is also not produced. What is produced is the xerox copy of the alleged salary slips. However, at the same time, it is also noticed that the petitioners have produced the letters said to have been issued by one of the partners namely Mr. R.V. Giri who is the second respondent in this petition. The said letter would indicate that the petitioners were employed by first respondent for 13 to 15 years. It is relevant to note that the document at Ex.W27 is the partnership deed which reconstituted, the structure of the partnership firm. It would reveal that Mr. R.V. Giri is exited from the partnership firm after accepting the compensation. The firm is reconstituted in 2009. The date would also indicate that the partner will have no claim from 26.09.2009. It is noticed that said Mr. R.V. Giri is examined as one of the witnesses and he has been cross examined by the partnership firm. Since it is brought in evidence that Mr. R.V. Giri has exited from the partnership firm. It is noticed from the cross examination that the petitioners have admitted in the cross examination that the letters which they rely to establish th