SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELEC), KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. v. MR. JAGADEESHAN

MR. JAGADEESHAN, MAJOR, CHIKKAHOLE DAM CHECK POST, ANTUGOOLIPURA POST, CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST. MR. KUBERA P., MAJOR, MUDALAPURA, UTTANAHALLI P.O., CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST. MR. K.M. SURESH, MAJOR, KUMBARAHALLI, HEMMARAGALA POST, NANJANGUD TALUK, MYSORE. (DELETED AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 27/10/2023) - 2 -

MR. M.S. SHANGAR, MAJOR, 489, 1ST DIVISION, AMEEJAN BEEDHI, GUNDLUPET, CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST. MR. LOUIS, MAJOR, DODDARAYANAPETE POST, CHAMARAJANAGAR TQ., CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs. 5(a) SMT. RAGINA W/O. LATE LOUIS, DODDARAYANAPETE POST, CHAMARAJANAGAR TQ., CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT. (PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 23/02/2024). ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.D. KUTTAPPA, ADVOCATE (V.C.)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS LEADING TO THE PASSING OF THE AWARD DATED 16.10.2006 PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, MYSORE IN I.I.D. NOS.154, 155, 157, 159 AND 160 OF 2003 VIDE ANNEXURE–F; QUASH THE AWARD DATED 16.10.2006, PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, MYSORE IN IID NOS.154, 155, 157, 159 AND 160 OF 2003 VIDE ANNEXURE-F. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 23/02/2024 FOR ORDERS AND COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 -

O R D E R The Superintending Engineer, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘Corporation’ for convenience) is questioning the legality and correctness of the award dated 16.10.2006 in I.I.D. Nos.154, 155, 157, 159 and 160 of 2003, whereby, the petitioner- Corporation was directed to reinstate the concerned workman the post with 50% back wages with consequential benefits and continuity of service.

The respondents filed application under Section 10 (4-A) of Industrial Disputes (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1987 contending that they are the direct employees of the petitioner-Corporation, their services were terminated during July/August 2003 without notice, and sought relief of reinstatement along with other consequential benefits, similar applications were filed in different ID numbers by several labourers. - 4 -

3. Petitioner-Corporation contended by filing counter statement the applicants are engaged through independent contract agency, the wages of the applicants are directly disbursed by the contract agency, the relationship of employer and employee is with that of the contract agency not with the Corporation stating these grounds sought for rejection of the application.

The Labour Court framed issues for consideration, which reads as under:

(i) Whether I Party proves that he had worked for the II Party continuously for 240 days in a Calendar year? (ii) Whether I Party proves that he was illegally removed from services w.e.f. 4.7.2003 without notice and without enquiry? (iii) Whether I party proves that he was directly employed by the II Party and there was relationship of employee and the employer between him and the II Party? (iv) Whether I party is entitled to the reliefs claimed?

- 5 -

Both the parties let-in evidence, Corporation examined the Superintendent Engineer as M.W.1 and the respective labourers deposed as W.W.1 in all ID Nos.154 to 160 of 2003. The Labour Court by impugned award, allowed ID Nos.154, 155, 157, 159 and 160 of 2003 directing the Corporation to reinstate the labourers with 50% backwages.

The claim of two respondents in IID No.156 and 158 of 2003 was rejected. No petition is preferred against the said order.

Heard Sri C.K. Subrahmanya, learned counsel for the Corporation and Sri B.D. Kuttappa, learned counsel for the workman.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation would submit that, the reasoning accorded by the Labour Court that the respondents are workmen of the Corporation is erroneous and warrants interference, as the respondents have failed to establish the contract of employment between the Corporation and applicant, there being no material - 6 - regarding appointment order nor wages paid by the petitioner-Corporation, the Labour Court was not justified in arriving at a conclusion that there was an employer and employee relationship and would contend that the reasoning arrived by the Labour Court warrants interference.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the workmen justifies the order passed by the Labour Court and would contend that the workmen having produced the material evidence to indicate that they were working in the petitioner-Corporation and the materials were produced to show that they had worked for more than 240 days and would contend that the impugned order does not warrant any interference.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is:

Whether the Labour Court was justified in arriving at a conclusion that there is a privity of the contract between the petitioner-corporation - 7 - and the respondents and whether the Labour Court was justified in holding that the workmen have worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year and the removal of service with effect from 04.07.2003 was justified and whether the impugned order warrants interference by this Court?

This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

The petitioner-Corporation is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has its own rules called “Recruitment and Promotion Regulations” (‘R and P Regulations’ for short) which has statutory force and all the appointments made in the Corporation are strictly covered by R and P Regulations.

The material on record would indicate that selected candidates are been issued appointment orders stipulating the various terms and conditions of appointment - 8 - under R & P Regulations, the contracts have been awarded by entering into contract with independent outside contract agency and the contract agency engages its own workmen, spared their services during the currency of contract period.

The petitioner–Corporation established several MUSS (Master Unit Sub-Stations) to improve quality and reliability of power supply and the sub-stations are manned, monitored on 24 hour basis by shift engineers, operators, the transactions are recorded in line clear book maintained in the stations.

The respondents were engaged through contract agency to work at sub-stations of the petitioner-Corporation, the contract was terminated during the year 2003, the burden of proof is on the workmen to establish that there was an employer and employee relationship, in light of the settled proposition of law, this Court needs to look into whether the sufficient materials were placed by the workmen to establish that they were the employees appointed by the - 9 - petitioner-Corporation on permanent basis and were given appointment orders, this is said so, in light of the fact that the petitioner is a statutory body and is an instrumental to State having statutory obligations to make recruitments in accordance with the rules and the selection process is required to be made in accordance with law.

The burden being on the workman to establish that he is an employee, the workman needs to produce the relevant documents regarding his appointments and other materials. No appointment letters, no document is produced to show that they have received wages from the petitioner- Corporation, what was placed before the Labour Court were the identity cards, which in no way indicate about the appointment of the workman by the petitioner-Corporation. In the absence of the same, the Labour Court was not justified in arriving at a conclusion that the respondents- workmen are the employees of the petitioner-Corporation. - 10 -