Even the witnesses for the appellants stated that their salaries were paid by the companytractor.
For this purpose the respondent No.
1 agreed to pay to the companytractor service charges of Rs.73,372.48 per month upto 700 employees with the following break up Rs.30,895.48 Salary and other statutory expenses Rs.42,477.00 for neutrilising the price hike of the raw material.
One of the main objects for which the respondent No.
1 but were employees of respondent No.
Under Clause 21, the companytractor was obliged to provide all the facilities available to the workers under various labour laws applicable to the respondent No.
The Contractor was also required to abide by all the provision of labour laws as applicable from time to time and was liable for financial obligations under various labour laws as amended from time to time.
The dispute was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court.
The companyt of repairing and maintaining all the equipment was also the companytractors.
The respondent No.
1 who they claimed supervised their work.
At the relevant time the companycerned companytractor was Aditya Shukla, the respondent No.2 herein.
The Labour Court found that the appellants were unable to prove that the respondent No.
The respondent No.
It was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 30th November 1972.
The Labour Court companysidered the evidence, both oral and documentary, and by an award dated 10th May 1996, came to the companyclusion that the appellants were number the employees of respondent No.
The Labour Court also numbered that the appellants witnesses were unable to identify or name any officer of the respondent No.
The respondent No.
1 was number applied to them.
1 and different companytractors by which the companytractor agreed to prepare and serve food stuffs and other refreshments at the canteen.
During the pendency of the companytract with the respondent No.2, the appellants raised an industrial dispute claiming to be regular workmen of the respondent No.
According to the appellants, they were employed by several of the companytractors and had been serving in the canteen for several years.
Being aggrieved with the award, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court at Allahabad.
The appellants witnesses also said that the respondent No.
From time to time agreements were entered into between the respondent No.
1 was established was to promote, encourage and develop the availability, use, supply and distribution at reasonable companyt in the companyntry of artificial limbs to needy persons particularly disabled defence personnel.
1 had numberhand in the selection of the employees of the canteen.
It was also the companytractors obligation to provide the raw material and ensure that such raw material was free from adulteration, companytamination and was wholesome and fit for human companysumption.
2 brought the raw material.
1 also set up a canteen for its employees.
1s witnesses said that the respondent No.
1 did number record their attendance number paid them their salaries.
RUMA PAL, J. The respondent No.
1 set up a factory where more than 700 persons are employed.
1 is a Government of India undertaking.
