Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Women Economic Development ... vs Bhatt Rameshchnadra Ambashankar on 23 February, 2018
Author: A.J.Shastri
Bench: A.J. Shastri
C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19839 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19840 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19841 of 2017
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19842 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI Sd/-
===============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the No
judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to No
the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
===============================================
GUJARAT WOMEN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.
Versus
BHATT RAMESHCHNADRA AMBASHANKAR
===============================================
Appearance:
MS. REKHA M PATEL for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR AMRESH N PATEL for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1
===============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J. SHASTRI
Date : 23/02/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 21
C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT [1] Rule. Mr.Amresh N.Patel, learned advocate waives
service of rule on behalf of the respondent.
[2] The present group of petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India arising out of a common question of law and facts, hence, the same are dealt with by way of present common order by treating Special Civil Application No.19839 of 2017, as a lead matter. These petitions are directed against an award passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad.
[3] The facts in Special Civil Application No.19839 of 2017 are that the respondent-workman had submitted a claim statement at Exh.5 in Reference (T) No.663 of 2003 by contending that since about four years the workman has worked in the petitioner-Corporation, which corporation is essentially set up for the development of the women for carrying out these activities of upliftment of women for a period of four years. The work was taken, and thereafter, abruptly with effect from 10.02.2003, the service has been put to an end. As a result of which, the industrial dispute has been raised which ultimately referred to the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad, and the same was registered as Reference (T) No.663 of 2003. By proper adjudication of the said reference, the learned Presiding Officer was pleased to pass a common order by tagging other identically situated cases, and partly allowed by directing the petitioner to reinstate to original position with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
Page 2 of 21C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT [4] So far as, Special Civil Application No.19840 of 2017 here also the respondent-workman had worked for a
considerable period of four years and in similar manner, the discontinuance has taken place which ultimately has culminated into reference before the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad being Reference (T) No.645 of 2003 in which also by common order dated 21.04.2017 reinstatement with 50% back wages is ordered and reference came to be partly allowed.
[5] So far as, Special Civil Application No.19841 of 2017 here also the respondent-workman had worked and on similar line his services were put to an end which has constrained the workman to raise Industrial Dispute Act, which ultimately referred to the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ahmedabad in which, the reference was registered as Reference (T) 662 of 2003 and here also after proper adjudication, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court was pleased to reinstate the workman with 50% back wages with continuity and to the original post.
[6] Same is the case, with respect to the case, in Special Civil Application No.19842 of 2017 in which also for a considerable period, the workman had worked, and thereafter, without any justification the services were put to an end of 10.02.2003 which has constrained the workman to approach the industrial forum in which, the reference was registered as Reference (T) No. 660 of 2003 and after dealing with this reference with another cognate references, an order of reinstatement with continuity of services to the original post and with 50% back wages. The reference came to be partly Page 3 of 21 C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT allowed, and it is this common order passed by the learned Presiding Officer is made the subject matter of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
[7] Since the facts which are entangled in these petitions are common, issues of law are also common, as a result of which, the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have requested the Court to deal with together and decide by way of common judgment. Hence, with these backgrounds, the petitions are taken up for hearing.
[8] Ms.Rekha M.Patel, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that, a serious error of jurisdiction is committed by the learned Presiding Officer in not properly appreciating the evidence on record. It has been contended that the nature of work ought to have been kept in mind while passing the order impugned in the petitions. Apart from that, the tenure of the respondent-workmen was also of vital consideration, which has not been properly considered by the learned Presiding Officer.
[9] Ms.Patel, learned advocate has further contended that the reasons which are assigned by the learned Presiding Officer are not such which can justify the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the learned Presiding Officer. In addition thereto, the judgment which have been relied upon though have no applicability and the same were made a base while exercising jurisdiction. As a result of this, such an order based upon such erroneous exercise of jurisdiction does not call for any interference.
Page 4 of 21C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT [10] Ms.Patel, learned advocate has further contended
that though the documentary list have been produced at length in the Court below and each documentary evidence ought to have been gone into and though there are several communication brought to the notice at mark 10, the same have not been considered in their true prospective. As a result of this, the conclusion which has been arrived at is perverse based upon material irregularity, hence, cannot be said to the legal.
[11] Ms.Patel, learned advocate has further contended that the learned Presiding Officer has materially failed in considering the core issue that there is no direct employment with the petitioner-corporation and there is no pervasive control of the corporation and these employees are not the employees of the petitioner-corporation. Hence, in the absence of any employee / employer relationship, the reference itself could not be entertained. Now this material aspect has not been properly considered though was of vital consideration, hence, such exercise of jurisdiction is completely based upon non-application of mind, as a result of this, only of this count; the order in question deserves to be corrected.
[12] Ms.Patel, learned advocate has further contended that it is settled position of law that assigning cogent reasons is part and partial of principles of natural justice and a bare reading of this, would clearly indicate that the order is not backed by cogent reasons which ultimately violates a well recognized of principles of natural justice. Therefore, this is nothing, but a clear example of error of jurisdiction, as a result Page 5 of 21 C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT of this, the Court can certainly exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction to correct the mistake committed. No other submissions have been made.
[13] To meet with the stand taken by Ms.Rekha M.Patel, learned advocate, Mr.Amresh N.Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has vehemently contended that the jurisdiction is very much vested in the learned Presiding Officer to deal with the controversy and in exercise of such jurisdictional periphery, the adjudication has taken place and by examining every material, a cogent reason is also assigned as to why the reference deserves to be partly allowed. Mr.Patel, learned advocate has further contended that not only every material is examined by the Court but the conduct of the petitioner has also been minutely observed. On the basis of which, the learned Presiding Officer has come to the conclusion that it is a systematic design which has been adopted, so as to see that these workmen may not get any benefit out of their hard-work. In fact, though the petitioner- corporation is dealing with a benevolent social activity has entered into made design to exploit the workmen and with a view to consider that a systematic modus operandi is executed, so that a stand can be taken that these workers are not the workers of petitioner-corporation. This aspect has been minutely gone into by learned Presiding Officer and has come to the categorical conclusion that such is nothing but a fake attempt. On the basis of evaluation of material on record, a clear finding is arrived at by learned Presiding Officer that there is a sheer violation of the mandatory provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, as a result of which, the Court was constrained to pass an award on 21.04.2017.
Page 6 of 21C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT [14] Mr.Patel, learned advocate has further contended
that the conclusion is well supported by the cogent materials on record, and as such, it cannot be said in any way that there is any perversity. In fact, perversity is well defined by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena decision and considering such well sound proposition, at least this exercise of jurisdiction cannot be said to be perverse in any manner, and the conclusion is arrived at is a clear and definite conclusion which is thoroughly justified by the background of material.
[15] Mr.Patel, learned advocate has further contended that the device which has been adopted of creating an illusory relationship has been thoroughly examined and more than adequate opportunity has been provided to the petitioner to establish the case but from the testimony of witnesses, only it has been clearly concluded by the learned Presiding Officer that this was an artificial arrangement to treat the workmen as not that of corporation. The learned Presiding Officer has screened this on the basis of material, as a result of which, conclusion cannot be said to be erroneous in any manner. On the contrary, on the basis of cross-examination itself, it has been emerged this artificial arrangement of the corporation.
[16] Mr.Patel, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has further strongly relied upon one of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench delivered on 03.08.2015 in Special Civil Application No.10973 of 2014, in which, this very kind of grievance is examined and analyzed by the learned Judge at length and has come to the conclusion that no case was made out and there was a clear existence of relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the workmen and Page 7 of 21 C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT there was a clear violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act, hence, the reference was entertained and allowed, the same to be carried out. Mr.Patel, learned advocate has further contended that this very order passed by the learned Presiding Officer in which also the Division Bench has examined the issue and by reasoned order has dismissed the Letters Paten Appeal by confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. This order has also challenged by way of SLP in the Hon'ble Apex Court in which also the Hon'ble Apex Court did not entertain the plea of corporation, so the basic order of Special Civil Application No.10973 of 2014 attains finality right of to the Hon'ble Apex Court, and according to Mr.Patel, learned advocate, this is squarely applicable in case of present petitioner. As a result of this, no error committed by the learned Presiding Officer in the background of this peculiar set of circumstance. Hence, extraordinary equitable jurisdiction may not be exercised in the present case.
[17] Mr.Patel, learned advocate has further contended that there is yet another decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court which is in the case of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Silchar verus Oil and Natural Gas Commission Contractual Workers Union reported in (2008) 12 SCC 275 which also has been pressed into service and by citing such decision a specific contention is raised that there is no irregularity of any nature which requires this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and ultimately requested to dismiss the petitions on the line on which identical issues have also dealt with by this Court.
Page 8 of 21C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT [18] Having heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and having gone through the material on record which has been pressed before this Court, following circumstances which are touching to the root of matter are not possible to be unnoticed by this Court while examining the validity of the order under challenge:
In all these four matters, it is evident that after consolidation, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has passed a detail common order which is based upon analysis of material on record.
[19] While passing the order under challenge, the evidence has been discussed and dealt with and from page 92 of Special Civil Application No.19842 of 2017, it appears that with respect to Kedha, Item No.3, the learned Single Judge appears to have considered his case which is almost similar to the present case on hand, and the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge is that the petitioner-corporation is fully owned by the State and engaged in undertaking the benefits for the welfare and betterment for women. Almost in similar set of circumstances, the learned Single Judge of this Court, a coordinate Bench, has observed certain undisputed facts which have got a substantial bearing. Hence, the observations contained in paragraph 18 of the said decision dated 03.08.2015 since relevant, deserves to be quoted hereinafter:
"18. The Court has heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the papers annexed with the Page 9 of 21 C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT petition. Before adverting to the rival submissions of learned counsel of the parties, it would be most appropriate to set out herebelow few indisputable aspects emerging therefrom:
(i) The petitioner is a Company fully owned by the State and is engaged in undertaking benefits for the welfare and betterment of the women.
(ii) The documents, which have been sought to be relied upon by the petitioner in support of his submission, in respect of contract etc, have not been placed before the Labour Court and without their being any discussion or contention for the first time, those documents have been sought to be relief upon in this proceedings.
(iii) The workman respondent is said to have been working in the Corporation though as per the say of Corporation, through Trust contractor, but that contract had never been placed on the record of the Court so as to invite any adjudication thereupon.
(iv) The contract, which has been produced in this court, indicate otherwise then what has been contended by the employer petitioner in this petition.
(v) The statement of claim has been responded by filing written statement, in which also, the articulation which sought to be made out in this present proceedings is conspicuously lacking.
(vi) The testimony of the witness of management also do not contain any categorical Page 10 of 21 C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT statement qua the existence of contractor, who could be termed as 'labour contractor'.
(vii) The Court has examined these aspects in detail and come to the conclusion that workman deserve to be reinstated with 50% back wages and continuity of service.
(viii) The said order dated 18.4.2012 is under challenged.
(ix) There appears to be an application under Rule 26A of the Rules on the ground that the award could be said to be an ex-parte. That application has been rejected vide order dated
11.4.2014. That order has also been subject matter of challenge in this petition.
(x) The counsel could not dispute the fact that the application was misconceived in law."
[20] It is further emerging from the said order that it was also found that termination has taken place without following mandatory provisions contained under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The said specific conclusion which is reflected in paragraph 24 of the said decision since relevant, deserves to be quoted hereinafter:
"24. The employer had not produced any other contracts before the Court to substantiate its claim that coordinator or other workmen like petitioner were in fact engaged through Trust employer as sought to be pleaded here in this Court. This Court is rather satisfied in respect of findings recorded by the Labour Court that there exists relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and workman and Page 11 of 21 C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT therefore, when workman's services were terminated without following due procedure of law including provisions of Section 25F, the Court was justified in awarding the reinstatement with appropriate back wage as mentioned in the order."
[21] Now coming back to the case on hand, a bare perusal of the conclusion delivered by the learned Presiding Officer is that Exhs. 42 to 58, the material which has been adduced is also examined and a categorical conclusion is observed that these workers were directly under the supervision and mandate of the officers of the present petitioner corporation and these workers have to act upon the direct instructions and there was a deep and pervasive control of the corporation over these workers.
[22] It has also been observed from cross-examination at Exh.32 in which there was a clear admission on the part of witness of the petitioner, as establishment that a decision to keep these workers on work and distribution of work is also being governed and controlled by the petitioner-corporation and there was also a conclusion that a clear violation of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act is emerged and when these conclusions are based upon the material on record there is hardly any justifiable reason to come to a different conclusion than what has been concluded by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court.
[23] Even while independently analyzing the material on record, a bare perusal of the witness of petitioner establishment at Exh.32 is made, this testimony is revealing in additional examination reflected on page 81/1 that the Page 12 of 21 C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT testimony by way of affidavit is at the instructions and guidance of the General Manager of petitioner and it has also been asserted and emerging from the cross-examination that present workers Bhatt Rameshchandra Ambashankar along with other were having a monthly meeting directly with the Managing Director.
[24] Even a further cross-examination is indicating that the deponent has seen the agreements and has admitted that it is true that by setting up voluntary establishments and by utilizing the same as a labour, the appointments were decided to be made by the present petitioner-corporation. So much so that the Managing Director of corporation is having an absolute power to place and transfer these workers wherever he decides. From further cross-examination, it has been revealed that these workers have been engaged to carry out the objects the work of the petitioner establishment and decision of discontinuing these workers have been taken by the Managing Director. Even when there is some lack of diligence in work then it is the petitioner-corporation who used to give a mandate and strong guidance to work in a particular manner. He has categorically admitted that it is true that the petitioner establishment has taken decision to stop these workers on attending work.
[25] It is further emerging from the testimony of this management witness that the amount of Rs.2,000/- being paid is determined by the petitioner corporation and it is also emerging that ultimate decision is being taken by the petitioner-corporation to deal with the workers and as such from entire testimony, it is emerging that there is a deep and Page 13 of 21 C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT pervasive control of the petitioner-corporation over these workmen who raised the grievance and it is admitted that though the decision to put an end is taken by the petitioner- corporation, no retrenchment compensation, no notice pay, nor any amount is paid to the respondent workmen.
[26] So from overall consideration of the evidence on record has led to believe the learned Presiding Officer that these respondent-workmen are the workmen of the petitioner- corporation. there is a deep and pervasive control over these workers by petitioner-corporation itself and it has also been found that the arrangement which has been made is an artificial arrangement and on apprehension of material a definite conclusion has been arrived at that there is a clear violation of mandate of the statute more particularly Section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
[27] Now these are the circumstances which are reflecting from the record and having considered the same, the learned Presiding Officer was constrained to pass an order which cannot be said to be illegal or irregular in any manner. Even the entire decision making process and conclusion by the learned Presiding Officer cannot be found to be perverse or erroneous in any manner and when that be so there appears hardly any cogent circumstance left to this Court to substitute any of the finding arrived at by the learned Presiding Officer in exercising of extraordinary jurisdiction. As a result of this, there appears to be a full force on the submissions made by Mr.A.N.Patel, caveator appearing for the respondent. Hence, no case is made out by the petitioner to deviate from any view which has been concluded by the learned Presiding Officer.
Page 14 of 21C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT [28] This Court has perused the judgment passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application as referred to above and almost similar set of circumstance has been examined, analyzed and concluded that there is a clear violation of mandatory requirement of the statute and the reinstatement and 50% back wages ordered in that case has upheld right up to the Hon'ble Apex Court. From the reading of that judgment, this Court found no other distinguishable material to deviate from a conclusion of the Co-ordinate Bench in this kind of almost similar set of circumstance, hence, considering this position also there appears to be no error committed by the learned Presiding Officer.
[29] Additionally to ensure, as to whether any illegality touching to the root of matters is crept in or not as a cross check even the testimony as referred to above has been independently examined by this Court and after considering the same, it has been found that what has been concluded by the learned Presiding Officer cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse in any manner. Now while going through the decision which has been pressed into service by the learned advocate in the case of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Silchar (Supra), this decision is on the aspect of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, and wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that extraordinary jurisdiction is to be exercised with great circumspection. The relevant observations contained in paragraph Nos.15 and 16 since are relevant, worth to be quoted hereinafter:-
Page 15 of 21C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT "15. We have examined the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. This Court has held time and again that the High Court had the authority to enquire as to whether a finding arrived at by the Tribunal was based on evidence and to correct an error apparent on the face of the record. The observations in Trambak Rubber Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) are to this effect and it has been highlighted that the High Court would be fully justified in interfering with an Award of an Industrial Court on account of a patent illegality. In Seema Ghosh's case (Supra), this Court observed that the High Court's interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with an Award of the Labour Court was justified as the Award had been rendered contrary to the law laid down by this Court and as a measure of "misplaced sympathy", and was thus perverse. The other judgments cited by Mr. Dave lay down similar principles and need not be dealt with individually. It will be seen therefore that the interference would be limited to a few cases and as already noted above, in the case of a patent illegality or perversity. On the contrary, Mr. Sanyal's reliance on Sadhu Ram's case (supra) is more appropriate to the circumstances herein. It has been observed as under:
"The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is truly wide but, for that very reason, it has to be exercised with great circumspection. It is not for the High Court to constitute itself into an appellate court over tribunals constituted under special legislations to resolve disputes of a kind qualitatively different from ordinary civil disputes and to re-adjudicate upon questions of fact decided by those tribunals. That the questions decided pertain to jurisdictional facts Page 16 of 21 C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT does not entitle the High Court to interfere with the findings on jurisdictional facts which the Tribunal is well competent to decide. Where the circumstances indicate that the Tribunal has snatched at jurisdiction, the High Court may be justified in interfering. But where the tribunal gets jurisdiction only if a reference is made and it is therefore impossible ever to say that the Tribunal has clutched at jurisdiction, we do not think that it was proper for the High Court to substitute its judgment for that of the Labour Court and hold that the workman had raised no demand with the management".
16. We are therefore of the opinion that in the light of the facts that have come on record we find no perversity or patent illegality in the Award of the Industrial Tribunal and on the contrary must appreciate that it has minutely examined the evidence in arriving at its decision. In this view of the matter, it was inappropriate for the Learned Single Judge to have reappraised the evidence and come to a different conclusion."
[30] In addition to this, the relevant observations contained in paragraph Nos.20 and 21 are also similarly having background over the facts of the present case the Court is considering it expedient to reflect in the present order, hence, reproduced hereinafter:
"20. It was contended by Mr. Dave that this Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) has clearly opined that the contract or casual labour could not claim regularization and he has in particular emphasized that in the light of the admitted position that at some stage, the workmen Page 17 of 21 C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT were indeed contract employees the ratio of the aforesaid was clearly applicable to the facts of the case. We, however, observe that the aforesaid decision was considered by another Bench of this Court in Pandey's case (supra) wherein it has been held that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and that the case is only an authority for what it logically decides and what logically flows from it. In Pandey's case (supra) the question was as to whether casual employees working in the Electricity Board were entitled to regularization of their services. This is what the Division Bench had to say in paragraphs 16 and 17:
"We are constrained to refer to the above decisions and principles contained therein because we find that often Uma Devi's case (supra) is being applied by Courts mechanically as if it were a Euclid's formula without seeing the facts of a particular case. As observed by this Court in Bhavnagar University's case (supra) and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.'s case (supra), a little difference in the precedential value of a decision. Hence, in our opinion, Uma Devi's case (supra) cannot be applied mechanically without seeing the facts of a particular case, as a little difference in facts can make Uma Devi's case (supra) inapplicable to the facts of that case. In the present case the writ petitioners (respondents herein) only wish that they should not be discriminated against vis-Ã -vis the original employees of the Electricity Board since they have been taken over by the Electricity Board "in the same manner and position". Thus, the writ petitioners have to be deemed to have been appointed in the service of the Electricity Board Page 18 of 21 C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT from the date of their original appointments in the Society. Since they were all appointed in the society because 4.5.1990 they cannot be denied the benefit of the decision of the Electricity Board dated 28.11.1996 permitting regularization of the employees of the Electricity Board who were working from before 4.5.1990. To take a contrary view would violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
We have to read Uma Devi's case (supra) in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution, and we cannot read it in a manner which will make it in conflict with Article 14. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any judgment, not even of the Supreme Court, can violate the Constitution."
It will be seen therefore that each case has to be examined to a very large extent on its specific facts, and a universal yardstick should not be attempted.
21. In the instant case, on a consideration of material produced before it, the Tribunal came to the following conclusions:
(1) That there existed a relationship of master and servant.
(2) That there was no contractor appointed by ONGC.
(3) That the ONGC used to supervise and allot works to individual workers.
(4) That the ONGC took disciplinary action and called for explanations from the workers. (5) The workers were paid wages though they did not attend their duties due to Cachar Bandh and due to flood.
(6) The wages were paid direct to the workers by Page 19 of 21 C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT the ONGC and the acquaintance roll was prepared by the Management to make payment to the workmen".
It has also been observed that even the ONGC had admitted that since 1988, there was no licensed contractor and that the wages were being paid through one of the leaders of the Union and one such contractor, Manik has been named. The Tribunal then opined that it appeared from the record that Manik himself was a workman and not a contractor as he too was shown in the acquaintance roll to have received wages. We find that the real issue was as to the status of the workmen as employees of the ONGC or of the contractor, and it having been found that the workmen were the employees of the ONGC they would ipso-facto be entitled to all benefits available in that capacity, and the issue of regularization would, therefore, pale into insignificance. We find that in this situation, the Industrial Tribunal and the Division Bench of the High Court were justified in lifting the veil in order to determine as to the nature of employment in the light of the judgments quoted above. We, therefore, find that the ratio of the judgment in Uma Devi's case (supra) would not be applicable and that the facts of Pandey's case are on the contrary more akin to the facts of the present one."
[31] Even the Hon'bel Apex Court, relying upon the earlier decision in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. versus Workmen reported in AIR 1967 SC 469, has also dealt with, hence, overall reading of the said order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court has a substantial bearing on the present case on hand. Hence, keeping in view all the circumstances which are prevailing on record if to be co-
Page 20 of 21C/SCA/19839/2017 JUDGMENT related with the cogent conclusion arrived at by the Court below, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case in which extraordinary equitable jurisdiction deserves to be exercised. Hence, these petitions being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.
[32] Accordingly, by confirming the award passed by the learned Presiding Officer in all these group of petitions, these present petitions stand dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged.
Sd/-
(A.J.SHASTRI ,J) dharmendra Page 21 of 21