Dismissed

Shri Radhakrishnan N. Pillai and Ors. v. M/S.Engineering Export Promotion Council

Bombay HC8 Apr 2013WP/550/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an industrial award. The tribunal held petitioners failed to prove an employment relationship. Finding no error in the tribunal's evidence-based conclusion, the Court exercised no jurisdiction to interfere.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no interference with the impugned order allowing management's termination of services.

Shri Radhakrishnan N. Pillai and Ors. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

29-wp-550-13

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.550 OF 2013

¶6

Shri Radhakrishnan N. Pillai and Ors. Versus M/s. Engineering Export Promotion Council

¶7

....Petitioners.

¶8

...Respondent.

¶9

Mr. N.M.Ganguli, advocate for the Petitioners.

¶10

Mr. Dinesh Pednekar with Mr. Malcolm Siganporia i/by Hariani & Co., advocates for the respondent.

¶11

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.

¶12

DATED : April 8, 2013.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective

¶15

parties.

¶16

2 By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are challenging the award dated 7.5.2012, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, CGIT-1/12 of 2002. The said award was passed in pursuant of the reference made by the Central Government that Whether Respondent/Management's action, in terminating the services of four employees/petitioners, is legal and justified.

Shivgan

29-wp-550-13

3 Respondent is the Central Government Undertaking. It is their

¶21

specific case that in case of any vacancy to any post, the same is advertised in newspapers, applications are invited, candidates are interviewed by the Committee of Administration and the selected candidates are given appointment letters signed by the Secretary. Their names are entered in the muster roll. It is also specific case of the respondent that the petitioners/employees were never the employees of it. They had never made any application in pursuant of any advertisement They never appeared for any interview and never selected.

¶22

4 Petitioners in their cross-examination have admitted that no appointment letters and salary slips were issued to them. They further admitted that their names were not on the muster roll of the respondent/company. They never moved any application for issuance of appointment letter and recording their names on the muster roll. Petitioners relied upon the identity cards only. It is the stand of the respondent/company that identity cards are issued even to the vendors, tiffin carriers, milk man, tea vendors and staff of the contractors engaged in the building.

Shivgan

29-wp-550-13

4 In the light of above material, Tribunal came to conclusion that the petitioners could not prove relationship of employees and employer between them and the respondent/company and, therefore, they are not entitled for relief of reinstatement. After going through the findings, I find that the same are recorded on the basis of evidence on record and, therefore, no fault can be found with the said findings. In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petition is accordingly dismissed .

¶27

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶28

Shivgan

Shri Radhakrishnan N. Pillai and Ors. v. M/S.Engineering Export Promotion Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Radhakrishnan N. Pillai and Ors. v. M/S.Engineering Export Promotion Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E-City Digital Cinemas Private Limited Vs -------

Iifl (Thane) Private Ltd. Vs ------

Reliance Clean Energy Private Ltd. Vs ---

Ravindra Subbana Shetty and Ors. Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Police (H.Q.-1) and Ors.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Vs Uttam Shankar Chavan

Juhu Alaknanda Co-Op. Hsg. Socl Ltd. Vs Executive Engineer and 3 Ors.