Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

When services are governed by rules and employment is in a statutory corporation which is an authority or organ of State, the burden would remain heavily on the petitioners to prove that they fall in the definition.

I find that the learned labour Court in its impugned award has failed to notice a material fact pleaded in paragraph 3 of the preliminary objections in the written statement filed by the corporation that the certified standing orders of the corporation which applied to work charge employees of HSMITC, the administrative powers to inflict punishment upon such workers have been given to Junior Engineers vide clause 25 which declares them as punishing authority for inflicting minor punishment of warning. Junior Engineers exercised administrative control with respect to work charge employees working under their control and supervision and they cannot be treated as industrial workers. It is also not disputed that the corporation suffered closure on 30.6.2002 under Section 25-O of the Act and the joint application under Section 33 C (2) was filed in 2009 after considerable delay and laches without sufficient explanation for the delay. This is not to say that there is any limitation prescribed for a Section 33-C (2) application. However, delay and laches is not an irrelevant consideration in declining relief against an industry closed down seven years before the presentation of the application. There is no valid or cogent ground to interfere with the impugned order declining relief. The petition to stand dismissed being devoid of merit.