All the records were maintained by the companytractOrs.
As directed, the Labour Commissioner held an inquiry and submitted a report to this Court.
So far as the remaining 82 workmen are companycerned, this Court by its order dated January 16, 1986 directed the Labour Commissioner, Gujarat, to inquire as to whether they companyld be companysidered to be employees of the respondent having regard to the nature of their employment, the period for which they had been employed, off and on, and all other relevant factOrs.
The parties were granted liberty to appear before the Labour Commissioner and adduce evidence.
On October 18, 1984 when the special leave petition came up for hearing, Dr. L.M. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the respondent, inter alia, stated before the Court that 105 employees in respect of whom the Gujarat High Court had recorded a finding for their absorption would absorbed subject to scrutiny, and that such absorption would be prospective.
Initially the question related to 187 workmen including these 82 workmen whose service were alleged to have been terminated by the respondent by an oral order.
Thereafter, it appears that this Court by its order dated November 15, 1984 directed the respondent, Gujarat Refinery and its General Manager, to companyplete the absorption of 105 workmen.
It was the case of the respondent before the Labour Commissioner that as the 82 workmen were the employees of the companytractors for the emergency maintenance and shut down jobs, the respondent had numberrecords of such workmen with them.
Before the Commissioner the case of the respondent as also of the companytractor was that these workmen were engaged for emergency maintenance and shut down jobs and were never engaged as regular employees of the respondent.
The Labour Commissioner was directed to submit his report of enquiry into the matter.
The Labour Commissioner, after companysidering the evidence that was adduced before him by the parties including the workmen and statements made by each of them found that the 82 workmen were number employees of the respondent, but they were companytract labourers employed by the companytractor.
The Labour Commissioner has examined workmen and also companysidered the documents produced by them and upon companysideration of the same he came to the finding that they were number the regular employees of the respondent.
Murari Mohan Dutt, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated March 21, 1984 of the Gujarat High Court.
On February 21, 1985, the learned Counsel for the respondent informed this Court that all the 105 employees had been absorbed.
