TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 732X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6-N of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') besides ordering ₹ 500 as costs to each one of them. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2109 of 1997 before the High Court. On 30.11.1998, Deputy Labour Commissioner issued a certificate to the Collector for recovery of ₹ 2,17,000. Challenging the said certificate, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41787 of 1998 was filed by the appellant. In the 3rd Writ Petition No. 1654 of 1999, the appellant questioned the validity and correctness of the order dated 2.1.1999 under which the appellant was asked to show-cause why prosecution should not be launched under Section 14-A of the Act. The High Court by the impugned common order dismissed Writ Petition Nos. 2109 of 1997 and 41787 of 1998 concurring with the findings recorded by the Labour Court. Writ Petition No. 1654 of 1999 was disposed of directing no further action for initiating criminal proceedings under Section 14 A of the Act if the appellant deposited a sum of ₹ 2,17,000 within a period of one month and in the event of failure of depositing the amount, there would be no impediment in laun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m Head Mali which copies have been filed by the worker party in the Court. Not filing the records concerning the attendance of workers by both employer no. 1 and 2 and destroying the same and filing of photocopies of the same by the worker party prove that employer no. I can also not escape from the liability of illegal termination of services of these workers. Hence, it is decided that the Respondent No 1 is also the employer of plaintiff-workers, though principle employer The High Court took note of the fact that the respondents-workmen were engaged for working as gardeners in the factory premises, campus and residential colony of the appellant; Ram Swarup, Head Mali was admittedly employed by the appellant; he used to supervise the work of the respondents-workmen; another employee of the appellant, namely, Sadhu Ram used to maintain the record of attendance of the respondents-workmen; when dispute arose consequent upon disengagement of the workman, he destroyed the attendance register by tearing it off at the instance of one Mr. Varshney who was working as Manager with the appellant. Further, in the impugned order, the High Court observed that if the respondents-workm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent case, the workmen were engaged as Gardeners and their work was not an integral part of the industry. There is nothing in the said judgment to say that the workmen engaged for the work in the premises of the industry though their work was not an integral part of the industry, cannot be employees of the industry. The two tests stated in the said case are available in paragraphs 5 and 6 which read:- 5. The true test may, with brevity, be indicated once again. Where a worker or group of workers laborers, to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is, in fact, the employer. He has economic control over the workers' subsistence, skill, and continued employment. If he, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is, virtually, laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex contracts is of no consequence when, on lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, we discern the naked truth though drapped in different perfect paper arrangement, that the real employer is the Management, not the immediate contractor, Myria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . After detailed analysis of the provisions and consideration of various decisions, in para 107 contract labour were classified in three categories. In para 108-116, the issue whether on a contractor engaging contractor, labour in connection with the work entrusted to him by a principal employer, the relationship of master and servant between him (the principal employee) and the contract labour emerges. An extreme stand was taken by learned Senior Counsel in that case that the engagement of contract labour by the contractor in any work of or in connection with the work of an establishment, the relationship of master and servant is created between the principal employer and the contract labour. In dealing with the said contention, various earlier cases decided by this Court were referred to including the case of Hussainbhai Calicut (supra). The extreme contention was rejected From the preusal of paragraphs 107-116, it is clear whether a workman is an employee of principal employer or not depends on the facts and circumstances of a given case. The case of Hussainbahi Calicut (supra) is neither dissented nor diluted. On the other hand, it is held that the said case is covered by class ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
