Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22. The workmen have stated that they joined into the employment of the management no. 1 w.e.f the dates as mentioned in the table above. Even though the said factum pertaining to their dates of joining was disputed by both the management, however, neither the management no. 1 nor the management no. 2 have filed the appointment letters issued to the workmen concerned on record. Assuming for the sake of the argument that the management no. 1 is merely the principal employer, then also the management no. 1 is supposed to maintain the list of workers provided by the service provider i.e. management no. 2 so as to ensure that the management no. 2 is complying with labour laws with resepect to the workmen cocnenred. No such plea has been taken by the management to say that they have not complied with the CLRA Act, or that they do not have records pertaining to their service details. Despite the same, the said details were neither brought by the management no. 1 nor by the management no. 2 on the court records.

32. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law, as well as the documentary and oral evidence placed upon record, this Tribunal is of the view that the Managements have not complied with the provisions of the CLRA Act, which they claim to be governed with as no registration certificate and license under CLRA Act has been placed upon record. Further, in the present matter as there is overwhelming evidence to arrive at a finding that the workmen are in fact employees of the Management No. 1. Hence, this Tribunal holds that the contract arrangement between the Management No. 1 and the Management No. 2 is mere sham, nominal and camouflage to deny the employment benefits to the workmen. The workmen whose details are given in the table above at Para No. 4 are in fact employees of Management No. 1. Therefore, this issue i.e. issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the workmen and against the managements.