Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Regularization – Claim for regularization by the appellants working as clerical staff – Plea of respondent-employer that appellants were not employees nor they were ever appointed by respondent in their set up but they were appointed as clerical staff by one cooperative society and therefore in the absence of any kind of relationship of the employer and employee between the appellants and the respondent, a relief of either absorption or regularization in the services of the respondent does not arise – Held: The facts involved in the case at hand clearly proved that there did not exist any kind of employee-employer relationship between the appellants and the respondent – Thus, the appellants not granted relief claimed.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellants failed to adduce any evidence to prove existence of any relationship between them and the respondent; Second, when the documents on record showed that the appellants were appointed by the Head Load Workers Cooperative Society but not by the respondent then obviously the remedy of the appellants, if at all, in relation to their any service dispute was against the said Society being their employer but not against the respondent; Third, the respondent was able to prove with the aid of evidence that the appellants were in the employment of the said Society whereas the appellants were not able to prove with the aid of any documents that they were appointed by the respondent and how and on what basis they claimed to be in the employment of the respondent except to make an averment in the writ petitions in that behalf. It was not sufficient to grant any relief to the appellants. [Para 8] [907-G-H; 908-A-B]
2. So far as the reference made by the appellants to one litigation decided by the Industrial Tribunal between one set of persons and the respondent regarding the status of such persons is concerned, it has no relevance for deciding this case and nor it, in any way, helps the appellants for claiming relief against the respondent. It is for the simple reasons that first, the case at hand arose out of the writ petitions whereas the case relied on arose out of industrial reference decided by the Industrial Tribunal; Second, the facts involved in the case at hand clearly prove that there did not exist any kind of employee and employer relationship between the appellants and the respondent; and lastly, there is no parity of any nature noticed on facts in the case at hand and the case relied on by the appellants. [Paras 9 and 10] [908-C-E]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.