LexG.M. TANDA THERMAL POWER PROJECT versus JAI PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A G.M. T ANDA THERMAL POWER PROJECT v.I JAi PRAKASH SRIVASTAVA AND ANR. OCTOBER 11, 2007 B (S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] Labour Laws-Appointment-On contractual basis-Against non-existing post By Land Acquisition Officer-For looking after land -r- c acquisition proceedings pertaining to land acquired for a Company- Salary to the employee paid by the Company-Termination of the employee-Industrial dispute alleging violation of provision of UP. Industrial Disputes Act-Labour Court directing reinstatement on the ground that there existed relationship of employer and employee D between the Company and the employee-High Court not interfereing with the matter-On appeal, held: Services of the employee were required by the Land Acquisition Officer and not the Company--Hence there did not exist relationship of employer and employee between the employee and the Company--Order of reinstatement was wrong in >--... E view of appointment against a non-existing post and in view of the fact that appointment was on contractual basis-High Court should have determined the disputed question of relationship of employer and employee, in presence of all the interested parties ie. also Land Acquisition Officer-Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act. F Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Judicial review- Labour matter-Interference with disputed question of fact- Permissibilit)l-:Held: When existence of the relationship of employer y and employee is disputed, inte1ference is permissible. G State acquired land for the appellant-Company. Acquiring Authority engaged first respondent as a daily wager for a temporary period to look after the pending acquisition cases. The expenses threreof were brone by the appellant. After expiry of the period, his +- services were terminated. Respondent raised industrial dispute H 46 ~ ! I G.M. TANDATHERMALPOWERPROJECTv. JAi 47 ~ PRAKASHSRIVASTAVA challenging his termination. Labour Court held that there existed a A relationship of employer and employee between the appellant and first respondent; that the respondent was entitled to notice pay and retrenchment compensation having worked for more than 240 days. He was directed to be reinstated with back wages. The Writ Petition thereagainst was dismissed by High Court on the ground that it could B not determine disputed question of fact in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia, 1950. Intra-Court appeal was also dismissed by Division Bench of High Court. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1. Lands are acquired in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is for the authorities concerned to conduct the cases relating to acquisition ofland in the courts oflaw. Although the appellant was providing for the funds for meeting the expenditure D in relation to payment of wages etc. to the first respondent herein, evidently, the relationship between an employer and employee did not come into being between the appellant and the first respondent. -"' The off er of appointment was issued by the Special Land Acquisition -. Officer. First respondent was working under his supervision and E control. His services were being taken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for a particular purpose, namely, looking after the land acquisition cases. When the purpose for which the first respondent was appointed ceased to exist, his services were terminated. If there did not exist any relationship of employer and F employee, the question of the appellant's fulfilling the obligations ~ required in terms of the UP Industrial Disputes Act, namely, payment ofretrenchment compensation or one month's pay in lieu of notice did not and could not arise. If the first respondent was a workman working under the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the question of G - compliance of the said provisions by the said authority would also ~ not arise. [Para 12] (51-D-G) 2. The High Court, committed a serious error in refusing to interfere in the matter. When existence of the relationship of employer and employee is disputed, the same was required to be H 48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. A determined in presence of all the parties who are interested in the subject matter of reference. The Special Land Acquisition Officer was ilota'party·to the reference. Labour Court, neither went into the question as-regards the nature of du
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.