The workman has preferred this petition for quashing

of the award dated 30.11.2010 in Reference No.29/1997

passed by the I Additional Labour Court, Bangalore and for

writ of mandamus against the respondent management for

his reinstatement and consequential service benefits etc.

2.

The petitioner was appointed in the respondent

establishment on 11.02.1993 as Foreman. He claimed that

he was working inside the factory and looking after the

external affairs of the factory as per the instructions of the

management.

He

was

removed

from

service

on

29.04.1995. He raised the dispute. The Government

referred the dispute to the I Additional Labour Court,

Bangalore.

3.

The point of reference was <whether the

respondent was justified in dismissing the petitioner from

employment on 29.04.1995?=.

4.

The respondent denied the jural relationship of

employer and the workman. It claimed that the petitioner

was the Proprietor of Srinidhi Industries and was taking

sub-contracting work. The respondent further claimed that

3

the petitioner with dishonest intention diverted its man

power,

machinery,

raw

materials,

equipments

and

infrastructure and misused them for his own business. The

respondent further contended that the petitioner failed to

keep up promise with reference to efficient quality

production and ignored the mandate of the petitioner that

he cannot work as employee as well as contractor so was

asked to resign. The respondent further contented that the

petitioner failed to comply that.

5.

The petitioner was removed from service on the

allegation that he deliberately caused damage to certain

machineries of the factory like D.G.set thereby paralyzed

the production, caused loss of the machinery and profits.

6.

On reference, the Labour Court framed three

issues namely:

(i)

Whether the petitioner was workman under the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947?

(ii)

Whether the petitioner is businessman as

alleged by the respondent?

(iii)

Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to try

the matter?

4

7.

The

Labour

Court

by

its

award

dated

09.12.2004 held those issues against the petitioner and

rejected the claim petition. He challenged that order before

this Court in W.P.No.5308/2006 (L-TER). This Court by

order dated 12.06.2009 allowed the writ petition holding

that the petitioner is a workman and remanded the matter

to the Labour Court for reconsideration of other issues on

re-appreciating the evidence, the law and precedents on

the point.

8.

The Labour Court on such reconsideration, by

the impugned award though held that there is jural

relationship of the workman and the employer between the

petitioner and the respondent, rejected the claim petition

on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct

and sabotaged the machineries of the respondent causing

huge loss and stoppage of production work to the

respondent.

9.

The petitioner challenges the said award on the

ground that the award is perverse and in disregard to the

settled principles of law.

5

10.

Reiterating the grounds of the petition, learned

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the award is

contrary to the material on record, therefore suffers

perversity. He further submits that there was absolutely no

material to show that the petitioner was owner of Srinidhi

Industries from where repair works of machinery of the

respondent were being done. He also submits that dismissal

of the petitioner under Clause 8 of the appointment letter

was illegal.

11.

Despite giving sufficient opportunity, learned

Counsel for the respondent failed to address his arguments.

12.

Having regard to the material on record and

submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner, the

question that arises for consideration is <whether the

impugned award suffers perversity and calls for review in

the hands of this Court?=

13.

It is settled principle of law that in petition

under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the

power to review of the award of the Industrial Tribunal is

very limited. U