Bhurumal worker w.e.f.
He was admitted in a hospital.
He claimed that he was working as a Lineman on daily wages with the Sonipat Telephone Department, BSNL at Saidpur Exchange and was number paid his wages for the period from October 2001 till April 2002.
He further stated that while working he got an electrical shock and because of this accident he was hospitalized.
The appellant had never made any payment of daily wages to the respondent as he was number the employee of the appellant and was number directly recruited by the appellant and there was numberemployer employee relationship between them.
He was number paid his salary from August 2001 to April 2002.
In the written statement filed by the appellant, appellant took up the same stand which it had taken in the companyciliation proceedings.
The appellant stated that the respondent may have worked as a companytract employee with the said companytractor and deployed at the establishment of the appellant in that capacity.
It was emphasized that as there was a companyplete ban on recruitment, the department had employed companytractors for carrying out the petty jobs, who in turn had engaged companytract workers.
Thereafter, arguments were heard and the proceedings culminated in the award dated 11.4.2011 passed by the learned CGIT.
Both the parties led their respective evidence.
Conciliation Proceedings companymenced after numberice was sent to the appellant.
Only one witness dare to deny the fact of accident.
Thus, answering the reference in favour of the respondent, the CGIT directed reinstatement of the respondent along with back wages.
The respondent was number issued any appointment engagement letter by the appellant.
However, he was number allowed to resume his duty which amounted to wrongful termination.
Defence of the appellant was that the respondent never worked with the appellant.
His services were illegally terminated with effect from 28TH April, 2002.
In the claim statement filed by the respondent before the CGIT, the respondent stated that he had been working as a Lineman with the appellant from 1.7.1987 and worked in that capacity till 27th April 2002 on daily wages basis.
He also stated that on 17.11.2001, while repairing the fault of a telephone, he suffered electric shock and due to this accident, he sustained injuries.
Whether the action of the management of BSNL, Sonipat in terminating the services of Sh.
The companyciliation proceedings were number successful, the Conciliation Officer sent his failure report to the Central Government and on that basis Central Government made a reference to the Central Government Industrial Disputes cum Labour Court CGIT , Chandigarh, with the following terms of reference.
The CGIT came to the companyclusion that there was clear evidence to the effect that the respondent was directly working under the administrative companytrol of the appellant as a Lineman and his services were illegally terminated.
K.SIKRI,J. Leave granted.
For deciding this appeal, the seminal facts, which are required a mention are recapitulated below The respondent herein raised an industrial dispute alleging his wrongful termination, by approaching the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Faridabad in the year 2000.
It was pleaded that there was an agreement dated 18.1.2002 entered into between appellant and M s. Haryana Securities Services Regd for supply of securities personnel to SSA, Sonipat.
