Civil Writ Petition No. 13187 of 2011

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Civil Writ Petition No. 13187 of 2011

Date of decision:-27.7.2011

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

...Petitioner

Versus

Sh. Bhurumal and another

...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

Present:-

Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate

for the petitioner.

RITU BAHRI J.

Challenge is to the Labour Court award dated 11.4.2011 (Annexure

P-6) whereby the petitioner has challenged the Award on the ground that the

respondent No.1 was employed by a contractor and the petitioner was not

directly involved in release of salary in other service commitments.

Respondent No.1 was engaged as daily wage lineman w.e.f.

1.7.1987. His services were terminated on 27.4.2002. Neither any show cause

notice was served upon respondent No.1 nor any inquiry was held. No retrench

compensation was paid. He raised a demand notice to file his claim statement

(Annexure P-2) before the Labour Court. In his claim statement his precise

grievance is that he has worked for 15 years under the respondent-BSNL,

Sonipat (Haryana) w.e.f. July 1987 till April 2002. On 17.11.2001 when the

workman was on duty at 11 AM and repairing the fault of telephone No.65033,

he met with an accident. He was climbing of a phone pole and 11000 volts

electric line was going over the telephone pole and an electric current was

caused to the workman and because of that the workman became unconscious

Civil Writ Petition No. 13187 of 2011

-2-

and his right hip and right little finger were broken. He was shifted to Dr. Sethi

Hospital on 18.11.2001 and on 19.11.2001 he was referred to the Medical

College, Rohtak. Appropriate help was given by Jatinder Kumar, SDO and Manjit

Singh JTO to the workman and he was assured that he will be allowed to re-join

after discharge from the hospital. The workman is claiming salary and treatment

expenses from the Department on account of electric shock while working on the

telephone wire during the duty time. The Management terminated the workman

w.e.f. 28.4.2002.

The respondents filed the reply (Annexure P-4). Vide Award

(Annexure P-6) dated 11.4.2011 the reference was answered in favour of the

workman. Mr. Madan Mohan, counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the

reply a specific stand was taken before the Labour Court while filing the reply

that the work was being got done through a contractor under the duly executed

agreement. There was no direct relation of master and servant with the

respondent No.1-workman. He was never recruited according to recruitment

rules prescribed for the appointment. The documents submitted by the claimant

from C-15 to C-44 are manufactured documents where an attempt is being made

to show that the documents were shown signed by the JTO and by the SDO with

whom he has worked. No evidence has been led to show that the wages were

directly paid by the Department. He has placed reliance of the judgment of the

Supreme Court in International Airport Authority of India versus

International Air Cargo Workers' Union and another (2009) 13 Supreme

Court Cases 374 to contend that there was no relationship of master and servant

with the workman.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner, it is not disputed that the

workman had worked for almost for 15 years as a daily wage workman as

lineman. The documents filed by the workman beyond doubt proved that he had

Civil Writ Petition No. 13187 of 2011

-3-

been working with the petitioner Management as lineman. The diaries, which

have been filed by the workman were prepared in an ordinary course of business

proved that the workman was working directly under the administrative control

of the Management. It is established before the Tribunal that the workman had

met with an accident while working in the office hours of the Management. He

was socially emotionally and financially helped at the time of accident. The

Managem