Challenging the order, rejecting the petitioner's application in I.A.No. 87 of 2009 in I.D.No. 1 of 2007, seeking permission to file additional counter, the Petitioner is before this Court.
2.The Industrial dispute was raised by the first respondent, claiming that he joined as a Reporter with the petitioner Management and he was working on a daily wage basis from 2002 onwards. Since he had completed nearly five years of service, he demanded permanency as well as increments. Hence, he was orally terminated from service on 02.11.2005. The said Industrial dispute is resisted by the Management claiming that the Workman was never employed with the Management. In the petition namely I.D.No.1 of 2007, the petitioner himself has stated that though he was working with the respondent management, his services were not reflected in the records of the respondent Management, but, he was shown to be an employee of Jasmine Job Services and Yes Services.
3.According to the Workman, the documents have been falsely created, though he was actually working for Dhina Boomi. The employee was examined P.W.1. Since he was not cross examined, an ex-parte award came to be passed. After the ex-parte was set aside, the Management filed I.A.No.87 of 2009, seeking permission to file additional counter statement.
4.In the additional counter statement, a plea is taken to the effect that the petitioner was never employed with the Management, but he was employed with Jasmine Job consultancy or Yes Services, which are agencies that provide man power to the Management.
5.The Labour Court had dismissed the application stating that it amounts to delaying tactics by the Management. The Labour Court has also observed that it is not incumbent on the Labour Court to go into the question of employment of the petitioner with third parties. These observations, to my mind, are not correct.
6.The workman himself in the petition in I.D.No.1 of 2007 has averred that he has been shown to be in services of Jasmine Job Services or Yes Services. He would contend that those documents have been falsely created by the Management. All that is stated in the counter statement is that those two concerns namely Jasmine Job Consultancy Services or Yes Services are independent organizations with separate P.F and E.S.I registration , which are engaged in providing man power to the Management and other concerns also. Therefore, the question that has to be determined in the I.D.No.1 of 2007 is as to whether the petitioner was an employee of the respondent Management or the employee of the third parties or he is an outsourced employee, who has been engaged through the man power agencies namely, Jasmine Job Consultancy Services and Yes Services. Of course, there is a delay in filing additional counter affidavit. But, I do not see any new plea that has been taken. The additional counter statement is only explanatory in nature and there is no prejudice that would be caused to the workman.
7.For the above reasons, this writ petition is allowed and the order of the Labour Court is set aside. The additional counter is taken on file and the Labour Court is directed to dispose of I.D.No.1 of 2007, within a period of six months form the date of receipt of the copy of this order and report as to the disposal to this Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
To
1. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai..