Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajpal vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, … on 20 December, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172208
CWP-4193-2010 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
203 CWP-4193-2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.12.2024
Rajpal ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Gurgaon & another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for respondent No.2
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of award dated
13.11.2009 (Annexure P-5) whereby Labour Court has answered reference
against him.
2. The petitioner claims that he joined M/s Hafed Oil Mills-
respondent No.2 on 21.11.2000 as Helper. At the time of his appointment,
no appointment letter was issued. While on duty, he met with an accident
and his left hand was crushed. He was referred to Birendera Hospital,
Rewari where he remained admitted from 12.01.2001 to 20.01.2001. He
filed an application before the Commissioner under Employee’s
Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘1923 Act’). The said application came
to be allowed vide order dated 11.03.2002 passed by the Commissioner. The
said authority held M/s Hafed Oil Mills as principal employer and
1 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 24-12-2024 22:01:09 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172208
CWP-4193-2010 (O&M) -2-
responsible to pay compensation in terms of Section 12 of 1923 Act. In the
said order, it was also noticed that principal employer in terms of Section 12
may make claim against contractor.
3. The petitioner on account of injuries could not work with
respondent No.2 and he approached the Labour Authorities. The matter
came to be referred to Labour Court which vide impugned award has
rejected claim of the petitioner on the ground that principal employer is not
liable to comply with provisions of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 (for short ‘ID Act‘). No relief can be granted against the principal
employer.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per orders of
Commissioner under 1923 Act, the respondent- M/s Hafed Oil Mills was
principal employer, thus, it cannot escape from its responsibility under ID
Act. The respondent before Labour Court has not furnished any evidence
with respect to contract executed with any contractor, thus, petitioner for all
intents and purposes was workman of respondent No.2.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that
petitioner before Commissioner himself pleaded that he was working
through a Contractor, thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned award. The
contract with the Contractor was produced before the Labour Court which
was exhibited as M-4.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides
and perused the record with their able assistance.
2 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2024 22:01:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172208
CWP-4193-2010 (O&M) -3-
7. The respondent is not denying the fact that petitioner during the
period in question had worked with it. The ground of denial of claim of the
petitioner is that he was engaged through a Contractor. The Labour Court
has returned a finding to the effect that burden was upon the workman to
prove that he was working for respondent-M/s Hafed Oil Mills. The
petitioner proved that he had worked with the respondent though he could
not prove that he was directly engaged and/or paid by management.
8. The Commissioner while holding respondent responsible to pay
compensation has held:
“[10] In this instant case, respondents No.1 & 2 had engaged the
respondent No.3 as a contractor for doing the work relating
to the trade or business of the Oil Mills the contractor i.e.
respondent No.3 engaged the injured the workman and other
workman for the execution of the contract work stipulated in
the agreement between the mill and the contractor. Therefore,
injured workman who has sustained injuries arising out of
and in the course of his employment would be entitled to
compensation from both the respondents. Sub Section [2] of
section 12 of the workmen’s compensation Act imposes a
liability upon the principal to pay compensation to such a
workman who was employed by a person employed by the
principal for the purpose of execution of contract of the
principles. In view of the provisions laid down u/s 12[1] of
the act, respondent No.1 & 2 shall be liable for the payment
of compensation to the applicant. But any event, the
respondent No.1 & 2 cannot ordinarily refuse to make the
payment of compensation to the applicant on the basis of
agreement of indemnify between him and contractor. There
will essentially be a matter between them and their
contractor. Needless to mention that the respondents No.1 &
2 shall also be entitled to enforce their rights made sub-
section (2) of the section 12 against the respondent No.3, the3 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 24-12-2024 22:01:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172208CWP-4193-2010 (O&M) -4-
contractor. In this regard, I hold support from decision dated
19.12.1990 of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad
in F.A. No.939 of 1983 in case titled ‘Koki Mansukh Rana v/s
Patel Natha Ramji“
9. The Labour Court while rejecting claim of the petitioner has
relied upon award under 1923 Act and has held: –
“[8] In order to prove that fact, the workman examined himself as
PW-1 and reiterated his earlier version. However, he could
not stand the test of cross-examination. It was admitted by
him that he filed a petition for recovery of compensation as
Ex.R1 before Commissioner under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, Rewari. In that petition, the contractor
namely Ashok Kumar was added as a party, if the workman
was not an employe of contractor, then why he was added as
one of the respondent. Then, it was admitted by him that he
was neither issued any letter of appointment nor order of
termination. Though, it is his version that he used to be
marked present by the respondents but no effort was made to
summon that record from it. In cases of International Airport
Authority of India V/s International Air Cargo Workers’
Union and another, 2009, LLR-923, and M/s Polymer papers
Ltd., Faridabad V/s Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-
cum-Labour Court, Faridabad, 2009, LLR-992, a similar
situation arose as in the present case and wherein it was held
that the principal employer will not be liable to reinstate the
workman on alleged termination when there was no
relationship of employer and was contractor’s employee and
also his name did not appear in their registers as maintained
by the principal employer. Besides that the contractor was
having full control and supervision over him. It is not
disputed that on a petition filed by the workman, order Ex.M-
5 was passed under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923
and wherein it was held that the workman was an employee of
the contractor. Even, there is a copy of contract agreement
Ex.M-4. Though, the learned AR for the workman relied upon
the ratio of law laid down in cases of People’s union for
4 of 6
::: Downloaded on – 24-12-2024 22:01:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172208CWP-4193-2010 (O&M) -5-
Democratic Rights and others V/s Union of India and others,
1982 (III), SCC-235 and Food Corporation of India, Haryana
Region, Sector-17, Chandigarh V/s The Presiding Officer,
Central Government, Industrial Tribunal, District Courts,
Sector- 17, Chandigarh and another, 1987 (II), PLR-22 but
the ratio of none of these cases are applicable to the facts of
the present case. The latest law of the Land is contained in
case of G.M. Tanda Terminal Power Project V/s Jai Parkash
Srivastava and another, 2008 (1), LLJ (SC)-887 and wherein
it was held by the Apex Court of the Land a person who
alleges relationship of employee and employer, the burden
would be upon him. Since, the workman failed to prove that
fact, so, it is not proved that either he was an employee of
respondent nor there was any relationship in this regard. So,
findings on this issue are hereby ordered to be returning
against the workman.”
10. From the perusal of afore-cited orders of Commissioner and
Labour Court, it is evident that it was petitioner who before Commissioner
disclosed name of Contractor though claimed compensation against
principal employer. This shows that there was no doubt about the existence
of Contractor. The respondent before Labour Court placed on record
contract executed with the contractor. The petitioner worked with the
respondent for two months. He has neither appointed letter nor order of
termination. These facts collectively prove that petitioner was engaged by a
Contractor and was posted at the premises of the respondent.
11. The Labour Court has rightly relied upon contract executed
between the respondent and Contractor as well as order passed by
Commissioner under 1923 Act. There is no jurisdictional error or factual
infirmity warranting interference of this Court.
5 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2024 22:01:10 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172208
CWP-4193-2010 (O&M) -6-
12. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that present petition being bereft of merit deserves to
be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
20.12.2024
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2024 22:01:10 :::
[ad_1]
Source link