ORDER
The petitioner claiming to be workmen of the respondent is before this Court, questioning the correctness and legality of the award dated 03.10.2015 in I.D.A.No.2/2014 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru (for short 'Labour Court'), by which the petitioner's prayer to reinstate with full back wages is rejected, directing the respondent-Management to pay a sum of Rs.7,800/- to the petitioner.
2. Heard Sri. Madhu Yadav, learned counsel for Sri. Sachin.B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Prashanth.B.R., learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working with the respondent as Driver between 2007-2012. Further, he submits that from 05.02.2012, the petitioner was refused work by respondent. Therefore, the petitioner raised a dispute and the same was referred to Labour Court in I.D.A.No.2/2014, in which, the petitioner sought reinstatement with full back wages. Learned
- 3 -
counsel would further contend that the petitioner to establish that he was working as Driver has placed on record at Exs.A1 to A24. But the Labour Court without appreciating the documents placed on record has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a permanent employee or Driver of the respondent. Learned counsel further submits that the material on record would establish that the petitioner was a permanent Driver of the respondent and he worked for more than 240 days in a year. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not been paid even terminal compensation and his termination is illegal without an enquiry. Thus, learned counsel prays for setting aside of the impugned award of the Labour Court by allowing the writ petition.
4. Per Contra Sri. Prashanth.B.R., learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has failed to establish that he is a permanent employee of the respondent. Further he submits that the respondent has closed its business from the year 2011 onwards. As the petitioner has failed to establish his permanent employment and also to establish that he worked for minimum 240 days in a year, the Labour Court is justified in dismissing the application. The petitioner has not
- 4 -
placed on record the order of appointment or any other document to establish that he is a permanent employee/worker. Learned counsel would further submit that the respondent filed objection before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, specifically contending that the services of the petitioner were utilized only when regular permanent drivers were not available. Thus, learned counsel for the respondent would support the order passed by the Labour Court and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, I am of the view that the petitioner has failed to establish before the Labour Court with regard to his status with the respondent-Employer. It is the specific contention of the respondent-Management that the service of the petitioner as Driver was utilized whenever the regular drivers of the respondent applied leave or only when the petitioner's services were required.
6. The petitioner has not placed any material to establish his appointment with the respondent-Management. The Labour Court on examination of the material on record i.e.,
- 5 -
Exs.A2 to 15 as well as Ex.A24 has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not a permanent employee under the respondent, but the respondent engaged his services only when the services were needed and when regular drivers were on leave. Even the petitioner-workmen has failed to establish that he had worked atleast for 240 days in a year. In that circumstance, the petitioner would not be entitled for any relief. Accordingly, writ petition stands rejected.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that as directed by the Labour Court, a sum of Rs.11,750/- with interest is deposited before this Court in terms of the order dated 09.11.2021.
Registry is directed to make payment of Rs.11,750/- deposited before this Court through D.D. Bearing No.158937 dated 25.11.2021 in favour of the petitioner forthwith on proper identification.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26