The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition challenging the Labour Court's dismissal. Upholding the lower court's finding, the court held the petitioner failed to prove a master-servant relationship, noting his name appeared on the contractor's muster roll and wage register.
Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.894 OF 2006
Waman R.Amraskar ..Petitioner
Vs.
Blow Plast Ltd. ..Respondents
Ms.Hutoxi Tawadia i/b M.M.Thorat for the petitioner
Mr.Shirish Naik for the respondents
CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J
DATED : 19TH APRIL, 2006
P.C.:
1. The present petition is filed challenging
the order dt.31.12.04 passed by the Third Labour
Court, Bombay. By the impugned order, the Labour
Court has given a finding that the petitioner has
failed to establish the master-servant relationship
between the petitioner and the respondent company
and therefore the said reference is not
maintainable and the same has been dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
2
in support of the contention that there exist a
master servant relationship has taken me afresh
through the entire oral and documentary evidence
which is forming part of the present petition. She
has taken me through Ex.’E’ onwards. The documents
at Ex.’E’, Ex.’F’ and Ex.’G’ are ESIC Cards and
ESIC forms. The documents at Ex.’H’ onwards are
the overtime vouchers. These are the only
documentary evidence produced by the petitioner in
support of his contention that he is an employee of
the respondent. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has further taken me through the oral
evidence of both the petitioner and the Manager of
the contractor of one M/s.Shetty Enterprises. She
has contended that the respondent’s case that the
petitioner was an employee of the contractor has
not been established because the contract between
the company and the Shetty Enterprises has not been
brought on record. In so far as this question is
concerned, the Trial Court has adverted to the
documents as well as the oral evidence which was
placed before it. After considering the oral
evidence, a finding has been recorded that the
petitioner has failed to establish a master servant
3
relationship and therefore the complaint is not
maintainable.
3. I have perused the documents produced.
From the documents it is not established that the
petitioner is an employee of the respondent
corporation. Merely because the name of the
petitioner as well as the name of the respondents
is mentioned on the ESIC card that does not
establish a master servant relationship. On the
other hand, the respondents have produced a muster
roll as well as wage register of M/s.Shetty
Enterprises and it has been revealed that in fact
the name of the petitioner was on a muster roll of
the said contractor M/s. Shetty Enterprises and
also on wage register. The said wage register is
for the period 1992-93 and the muster roll is for
the period 1990-93. The documents produced
indicates that the petitioner was infact an
employee of the contractor. In my opinion, merely
by non production of the contract between the
respondent and M/s.Shetty Enterprises no
interference can be drawn that the petitioner was
in fact an employee of the respondent company. The
4
burden of proof essentially is on the petitioner to
discharge by showing that there exist a master
servant relationship between the petitioner and the
respondents. The learned counsel has contended
that the fact that the petitioner was working on
the premises of the respondent itself is sufficient
to discharge the burden to establish that the
petitioner was an employee of the respondent. In
my opinion, the aforesaid contention is devoid of
any merits and cannot be accepted.
4. In view thereof, I am of the opinion that
on the perusal of the order impugned herein and
going through the assessment of evidence by the
Trial Court, it cannot be said that the finding
arrived at by the Trial Court that there is no
master servant relationship is perverse or there is
any error apparent on the face of the record which
enables me to interfere with the same under article
226 of the Constitution of India. Petition is
accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding that no master-servant relationship existed between the petitioner and the respondent is perverse or an error apparent on the face of the record.
Whether the burden of proving a master-servant relationship was discharged by the petitioner.
Whether the non-production of the contractor agreement entitled the petitioner to interference under Article 226.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Waman R. Amraskar
Blow Plast Ltd.
S.U. Kamdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court