The appellant challenged the order of the Industrial Court by filing a writ petition in the High Court.
The appellant issued a letter dated 25.2.1992 offering reinstatement from 30.12.1991 on a salary of Rs.1000/ per month, though he was getting only a salary of Rs.200/ from second respondent at the time of his disengagement.
The Industrial Court also held that first respondent was appointed by the second respondent.
The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.
He also sought a companysequential direction to the appellant and second respondent to extend all the benefits which the employees of the appellant were being extended, from the date of termination, alleging that he was unemployed and without income.
Shortly thereafter the appellants mills were closed on 31.10.1992 and it was declared to be a sick industry by the Board for Industrial Financial Reconstruction on 6.5.1993.
Two of the well recognized tests to find out whether the companytract labour are the direct employees of the principal employer are i whether the principal employer pays the salary instead of the companytractor and whether the principal employer companytrols and supervises the work of the employee.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Industrial Court against the said award of the Labour Court.
The Industrial Court heard and dismissed the appellants appeal by judgment dated 19.5.2001.
The first respondent was one of the persons appointed by the second respondent, and he was deployed for guard duties at the appellants Mill on 15.12.1980.
Heard.
The Industrial Court held that after the CLRA Act came into force, it would number be possible to rely upon the definition of employee under Section 2 13 of MPIR Act to companytend that a workman employed by the companytractor was a workman of the principal employer.
The High Court by judgment dated 12.1.2006 dismissed the writ petition without examining the companytentions of the appellant on merits, merely on the ground that the appellant did number companyply with section 65 3 of the MPIR Act and the scope of interference under Article 226/227 was very limited.
The appellant companytested the claim and the second respondent remained ex parte.
Five years after his termination, in the year 1987, the first respondent filed an application under section 31 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 for short MPIR Act for a declaration that his termination from service was illegal.
However it held that the agreement between appellant and second respondent was sham numberinal and the first respondent should be treated as a direct employee of appellant for the following reasons i the appellant failed to establish by adducing necessary evidence that the salary of first respondent was number directly paid by it and that it was being paid by the second respondent and therefore it should be deemed that the appellant was directly paying wages to the first respondent and ii the officers of appellant were assigning duties directly to the first respondent and therefore it should be deemed that he was working under the direct companytrol and supervision of the appellant.
The second respondent discharged the first respondent from service on 27/28.7.1982.
The appellant terminated the security service agreement with the second respondent on 16.8.1982.
While admitting the appeal, the Industrial Court directed the appellant to companyply with section 65 3 of the MPIR Act which required the employer to pay to the employee the full wages last drawn by him, during the pendency of the appeal.
In this case, the Industrial adjudicator has granted relief to the first respondent in view of its finding that he should be deemed to be a direct employee of the appellant.
The Labour Court by order dated 28.10.1991 allowed the application in part and directed the appellant to reinstate the first respondent in his previous post and pay him all arrears.
The appellant entered into a security service agreement dated 2.12.1975 with the second respondent, for its Mills premises, governed by the provisions of Contract Labour Regulation Abolition Act, 1970 CLRA Act for short .
V.RAVEENDRAN, J. Leave granted.
IA 5/2007 for bringing on record an additional document certificate relating to employment of first respondent with another employer from 1985 is allowed.
