dated 19 April 1989. The transfer order was challenged in his first complaint, namely, Complaint (ULP) No.1223 of 1989. By way of an adinterim order passed on 3 August 1989, the first Respondent was restrained from giving effect to the transfer order. By its further order dated 10 April 1990, the Industrial Court allowed the Petitioner's application for interim relief. It confirmed the stay granted to the transfer order pending hearing of the complaint, but directed, as and by way of a stop-gap and interim arrangement, that the Petitioner shall work as a Supervisor on behalf of the first Respondent with the Clearing and Forwarding Agents of the Company at a particular place till the decision of the complaint. It is the case of the Petitioner that, after he reported to this new location, he was put through various kinds of harassment, including non-payment of his wages. That led to the filing of the second complaint, namely, Complaint (ULP) No.928 of 1990. Both these complaints were clubbed together by the Industrial Court. In the trial that ensued, the first Respondent disputed the relationship of employer and employee between the first Respondent Company and the Petitioner. The Industrial Court, after taking into account the documentary and oral evidence before it and after hearing the parties, came to a conclusion that the Petitioner was not an employee within the meaning of Clause (5) of Section 3 of the MRTU & PULP Act (“Act”) and, on that basis, dismissed both the complaints. That order is challenged in the present petition.
