IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.07.2024 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL W.A.No.3499 of 2023 and CMP.No.28584 of 2023 The Management, Sri Venkateswara Gas Agency, by its Proprietor S.Mahapandiyan, M.N.R.Argate, Krishna Nagar, Vellore. ... Appellant Vs.

1.The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Vellore.

2.Raghu ...Respondents Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters patent against the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.26774/2014.

For Appellant : Mr.P.Chandrasekar For Respondent : R1-Court Mr.S.T.Varadarajalu for R2

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment of the Court was made by J.NISHA BANU,J.)

Challenging the order of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.26774 of 2014, in confirming reinstatement of the respondent, this writ appeal has been filed.

2. Brief facts required for consideration of this appeal are as follows:

2.1. The appellant is a Management and the 2^nd respondent is an employee. The 2^nd respondent claimed that he was employed as a Gas Delivery Boy in the appellant Management from 06.01.2000 on a monthly salary of Rs.1,500/-. Thereafter, he was terminated from his service, when he sought for extra wage of bonus and other coverage under the ESI and PF Act. The 2^nd respondent raised Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.41/2013, wherein the Labour Court vide order dated 26.08.2014, granted reinstatement to the 2^nd respondent. Challenging the same, the appellant/Management has filed W.P.No.26774/2014. This Court, by order dated 19.07.2023, modified the award to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the 2^nd respondent, since the appellant Company is not in existence. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant Management has preferred this Writ Appeal.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the 2^nd respondent was not an employee under the appellant Management. He was not paid any wages as claimed by him and further, there was no employer - employee relationship. Further, the 2^nd respondent has not produced any documentary evidence/originals before the Labour Court to establish the same. The documents Exs.A2 to A9, which were relied on by the Labour Court were all xerox copies, which ought not to have been accepted as evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single judge also recorded a finding that the workman had produced the original identity card, but the same does not contain the photo of the 2^nd respondent. Therefore, neither the Labour Court nor the learned Single Judge without properly appreciating the said material facts had passed the orders.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submitted that the 2^nd respondent produced his Identity card and various consumer cards in order to prove that he was working under the appellant Management and delivered gas cylinder to the consumers. At the time of cross examination of the 2^nd respondent, he produced the original identity card. Though it is the claim of the appellant that the 2^nd respondent had never worked under them, the Management failed to substantiate the said contention by any evidence. Therefore, the Labour court considering all those aspects has rightly reinstated the 2^nd respondent in service and the same was also confirmed by the learned Single Judge before this Court.

5. Heard both sides and perused the records.

6. The appellant had contended that without approaching the Conciliation Officer, the 2^nd respondent had directly filed a petition under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court. However, the records shows that the 2^nd respondent approached Labour Officer, Vellore, who in turn, issued notice to the appellant Management but the same was returned 'unserved' which was also marked by the 2^nd respondent before the Labour Court. The Labour Court concluded that there was no conciliation and submitted his failure report to the Government. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent