9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1619 - HC - Indian LawsIllegal or unjustifiable termination - Failure on the part of workman to establish the existence of employer-employee relationship - statement of claim of the workman dismissed for being devoid of any merits. Whether there existed an employer employee relationship between the Management and Sh. Kaushal Kishor Singh S/o Sh. Netra Pal Singh and if so whether services of Sh. Kaushal Kishor Singh have been terminated illegally and/ or unjustifiably by the Management and if so to what relief is he entitled? HELD THAT - This Court cannot sit in an appeal and substitute its view with that of the Ld. Labour Court. Ld. Labour Court in cases pertaining to industrial dispute is the final adjudicator of facts. This court in its writ jurisdiction have to be circumspect and cannot entertain petitions unless the award is perverse illegal if there is an error apparent on the face of the record if there is impropriety in the decision-making process or if the same is passed without jurisdiction. Further this court in its writ jurisdiction cannot reappraise the evidence and come to a different conclusion. Reliance is placed on Syed Yakoob vs KS Radhakrishnan Ors. 1963 (10) TMI 26 - SUPREME COURT Hari Shankar Sharma vs Artifical Limbs Manufacturing Corp. Ors. 2001 (11) TMI 1061 - SUPREME COURT Sadhu Ram vs DTC 1983 (8) TMI 313 - SUPREME COURT General Manager ONGC Silchar vs ONGC Contractual Workers Union 2008 (5) TMI 758 - SUPREME COURT . The law is well settled that the burden of proving the relationship of employer and employee lies on the workman. The inference regarding this relationship has to be inferred from facts and circumstances in each case and no general view can be taken in such matters. In the present case the award is well-reasoned and has been passed after duly considering and evaluating the evidence placed on record. Ld. Labour Court has rightly appreciated that the workman has failed to establish the relationship of employer-employee with the management. A bare perusal of the documents filed as evidence on behalf of the petitioner workman which includes the various emails and the forms under 16A do not in any way prove that there existed any relationship of employer employee between the parties - Moreover admittedly the petitioner had never applied for any employment with the Management in writing. As per petitioner he had an oral interview with one Sh. Sanjay Malik from the management in 2011. It is an admitted fact that neither any written examination was conducted and nor any offer/ appointment letter was issued to the petitioner. The documents relied upon by the petitioners are not sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship and are of doubtful origin. These documents would have some value only if there were some basic primary nature of evidence of more acceptable type as already mentioned in the form of ESI PPF records maintained by the company or PPF No. etc. which liability the company would not have escaped if the workman was working there. There is no evidence of even leave taken or refused during the alleged tenure - there existed no relationship of employer and employee between the parties. This Court is of the opinion that this is not a case where Labour Court has failed to take into consideration the documents produced by claimant-petitioner. In fact after extensively considering the entire documents on record Labour Court had reached the conclusion that there exists no employer and employee relationship between respondent-Company and appellant- petitioner. Moreover as the findings arrived at by the Labour Court are neither perverse nor based on no evidence this Court is of the view that they call for no interference in writ jurisdiction. Thus it cannot be said that the findings and the order passed by the learned Labour Court suffers from any such inherent illegality jurisdictional error or perversity as would justify interference therewith by this Court in exercise of the limited jurisdiction conferred on it by virtue of Article 226 of the Constitution of India - there are no reason to differ with the findings of the learned Labour Court to the effect that there exists no relationship of employer-employee between the parties and that the petitioner was not a part time workman but a freelance guide. The present writ petition is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Employer-employee relationship. 2. Illegal or unjustifiable termination. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court in reviewing Labour Court decisions. 4. Definition and scope of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Employer-Employee Relationship: The Labour Court held that the petitioner failed to establish the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The petitioner worked as an Approved Part-Time Foreign Language Linguist Guide without a formal appointment letter. The respondent management contended that the petitioner was a freelancer, handling assignments for other travel agencies as well. The Labour Court noted that TDS was deducted under "Payments made to contractors and subcontractors," disqualifying the petitioner from being considered a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the ID Act. The petitioner did not receive statutory benefits like PF, bonus, or ESI, and was paid on an assignment basis, not a regular salary. 2. Illegal or Unjustifiable Termination: Since the Labour Court found no employer-employee relationship, the question of illegal or unjustifiable termination did not arise. The petitioner claimed arbitrary termination without notice or inquiry, but the Labour Court dismissed these claims due to the lack of an established employer-employee relationship. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court in Reviewing Labour Court Decisions: The High Court emphasized its limited jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which does not extend to reappraising evidence or substituting its view for that of the Labour Court. The Court cited several precedents, including Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmed Ishaque & Ors. and Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v. State of Saurashtra and Others, to underline that it could only interfere if the Labour Court's findings were perverse, illegal, or without jurisdiction. The High Court found that the Labour Court's decision was well-reasoned and based on evidence, thus not warranting interference. 4. Definition and Scope of 'Workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947: The petitioner argued that the definition of 'workman' includes part-time and contractual employees, relying on Devender Singh vs. Municipal Council Sanaur and Yashwant Singh Yadav vs. State of Rajasthan. However, the Labour Court and the High Court found that the petitioner did not meet the criteria for a 'workman' as he was a freelancer, not a part-time or contractual employee. The Court noted that freelancing implies independence from a single employer, distinguishing it from part-time or full-time employment. Conclusion: The High Court upheld the Labour Court's decision, finding no employer-employee relationship between the parties and dismissing the petitioner's claims of illegal termination. The Court reiterated its limited jurisdiction in reviewing Labour Court decisions, emphasizing that it could not re-evaluate evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the Labour Court. The petition was dismissed.
|
