Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Continuing his arguments, it was contended that the first respondent ought to have found that the petitioner is a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and ought not to have accepted the case of the second respondent company that he was not a workman and he was only a retainer. When a specific case was laid before the first respondent that there has been a complete violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, as admittedly not even one month's notice or notice pay and compensation for his past service was given, the first respondent wrongly and erroneously held that the action of the second respondent company in terminating the services of the petitioner without any notice cannot be held to be a violation of the principles of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, since he was all along serving only as retainer. When the second respondent had issued the identity card even on 1.1.96, temporary pass during the period from 1997 till 2000, it goes without saying that the second respondent has accepted the petitioner as its employee. It was also fortified by the petitioner by producing all the relevant and acceptable documents, namely, the communications between the petitioner and the second respondent, more particularly, Ex.W4 written by the petitioner to the Deputy Manager (Maintenance) marked on 6.10.2005 asking the second respondent officials to release the payment. One another Ex.W5 dated 14.5.96, marked on 6.10.2005, issued by the second respondent making a recommendation for approval to be granted for continuing the engagement of instrument technician on retainership basis for maintenane of accuload system for a period of one year against the monthly payment of Rs.3,300/-, which was 10% above the amount that was paid during the previous period, supported by another document Ex.W6 dated 24.6.96, marked on 6.10.2005, seeking the consent of the petitioner for acceptance of the retainership and also Ex.W7 dated 25.11.99, marked on 6.10.2005, are all jointly showing that the petitioner was engaged for providing maintenance support for tank lorry filling system on retainership basis upto 31.12.99 with a consolidated monthly salary of Rs.3,300/-. All these documents produced by the petitioner have been completely misread by the first respondent by simply holding that the petitioner was employed only as a retainer. Therefore, there is no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and the second respondent. On completion of retainership, the petitioner cannot be allowed to complain that the second respondent employer has wrongly victimized the petitioner.

6. Mr.V.Karthick, learned counsel for the second respondent, replying to the above contentions, submitted that the reasonings and conclusions given by the first respondent cannot be construed or held as obnoxious, since the impugned award has been passed rightly on the basis of the documents placed by the petitioner and the second respondent. Right from day one of engagement as retainer in the second respondent, the petitioner has written umpteen number of letters asking them to recognise him only as retainer and also for continuance in the said capacity in the second respondent. At no point of time, the petitioner had written any letter that was placed before the first respondent or before this Court to say that he had asked for either his regularisation or for his continuance as an employee of the second respondent. When all along the petitioner has accepted his engagement as retainer that could be seen and confirmed from Ex.W6 dated 24.6.96, which has been further fortified by another Ex.W8 dated 1.12.2000, wherein he has specifically mentioned that he was willing to provide the maintenance support services on retainership basis for a further period of one year, his request for retainership having been accepted for a further period of one year from 1.1.2001, on completion of retainership, the contract automatically comes to an end. Therefore the petitioner, not being a workman or employee, is not entitled to raise any industrial dispute. It was also his further reply that admittedly there has been an agreement between the petitioner and the second respondent to accept him as retainer in the second respondent company. When that agreement came to an end on 31.12.2003, it cannot be construed that the second respondent has violated the conditions mentioned under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The reason is that when both parties have accepted the said agreement, neither of the party can dispute that after the expiry of the agreement, there has been violation of the same. Adding further, he has stated that when there is no palpable error as indicated in the impugned award, as a general rule, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution should refuse to interfere with such an award. Therefore, when there is no palpable mistake or error indicated in the impugned award, this Court cannot substitute its own view for interference with the impugned award.

7. I find full merits in the submissions made by Mr.V.Karthick, learned counsel for the second respondent. As mentioned above, Ex.W4 dated Nil marked on 6.10.2005 no doubt clearly shows that the petitioner had asked the second respondent to release the payment of Rs.3,750/-. But another document Ex.W6 dated 24.6.96 clearly shows that the petitioner had accepted his status as a retainer in the second respondent while entering the services of the second respondent for a monthly retainership fee of Rs.3,300/- for the period from 10.5.96 to 9.5.97. One another Ex.W8 dated 1.12.2000 written by the petitioner to the Senior Terminal Manager of the second respondent clearly shows that he was willing to provide maintenance support services on retainership basis for a further period of one year. Therefore, when the petitioner all along has accepted himself as a retainer, he is neither an employee nor a workman, hence, he cannot question the termination when the period of his retainership had come to an end. Hence, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the impugned award. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. No costs.