The Labour and the Industrial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, allowed the complainants filed by the respondent no.1. The Labour Court held that the respondent no.1 in both the petitions had proved that they had put in 240 days of continuous service and their services were terminated in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The order passed by the Labour Court was confirmed by the Industrial Court in the revision filed by the petitioner. It was held by both the Courts that the respondent no.1 in both the petitions were able to prove that there was an employer-employee relationship between the parties as several documents were placed by the complainants on record to show that the petitioner had directed them to perform the duties of a particular nature. The Courts also found that the petitioner had failed to prove its case that the respondent no.1 in both the petitions were appointed by a contractor on piece rate basis. According to both the Courts, no cogent evidence whatsoever was placed by the petitioner to prove the said fact though it was admitted by the witness of the petitioner in his cross-examination that documentary evidence was available. The Courts, therefore, in the facts and circumstances, held that it was necessary to direct the petitioner to reinstate the respondent no.1 in service without continuity of service and back wages.
