1.The petitioner, a workman, has challenged the award of the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No.2121 of 1988 whereby the demand and dispute for reinstatement with backwages has been rejected.
2.The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the award was perverse insofar as the Labour Court arrived at the finding of fact that the petitioner was not an employee of the respondent-firm. It was submitted that besides his own deposition, the petitioner had produced affidavits of two other workmen before the Labour Court in evidence of his having been employed by the respondent-firm. The Labour Court also did not give any weightage to the solitary piece of documentary evidence produced by the petitioner in the form of presence card according to the submission.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision or precedent in support of the argument that in absence of an application for cross-examining the deponents of the affidavits, the contents of the affidavits were required to be accepted. It appears from the plain reading of the award that the solitary piece of documentary evidence produced by the petitioner did not bear the stamp or signature of any authorised person and as against the muster rolls and wage registers produced by the respondent nowhere showing the name of the petitioner, the petitioner could not substantiate his plea of employment under the respondent by any reliable piece of evidence. On the contrary, there was evidence of the petitioner having been employed in another company where the provident fund account number was also allotted. Thus, the Labour Court has arrived at the finding of fact after proper appreciation of evidence and no perversity could be attributed to the finding. Obviously, when the relationship of master and servant was not established between the parties, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner could be awarded and the reference was required to be rejected.
4.In these facts and circumstances, there is no substance in the petition and, therefore, the same is summarily rejected. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.
Sd/-