Krantikari Kamgar Union vs Kuoni Travel (I)Pvt.Ltd.

The Petition challenges Award dated 25 November 2021 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai answering Reference (IT) No.05 of 2010 in the negative. The Reference was with regard to claim for permanency, payment of difference of wages and for reinstatement.

¶13

I have heard Mr. Pai, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Union and Mr. D’souza the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1-Principal Employer. I have gone through the findings recorded by the Industrial Tribunal in the impugned Award. I have also perused the records of the case.

¶14

Apart from the fact that there is failure on the part of the Petitioner-Union to prove the six tests prescribed by the Apex Court in

¶15

katkam Page No. 1 of 3

¶16

k 2/3 57 wp 1649.24 os.doc

¶17

its judgment in Balwantrai Saluja & Anr. vs. Air India Ltd. & Ors¹ . there appears to conduct on the part of the members of the PetitionerUnion clearly indicating that their real employer was Respondent No.2-Contractor. The resignations were tendered by the members of the Petitioner-Union to the Contractor and not to the Principal Employer. They were issued cheques by the Contractor while accepting resignation which they have encashed. They also submitted Provident Fund ( PF ) forms to Respondent No.2-Contractor and received the PF dues. They have subsequently turned around and raised the claim of being direct workers of Respondent No.1-Principal Employer. In my view, the conduct exhibited by the members of the Petitioner-Union at the time of cessation of their services clearly negatives their contention that Respondent No.1 was their real employer.

¶18

Additionally, there appears to be not much evidence on record for establishing direct master-servant relationship between members of the Petitioner-Union and Respondent No.1-Principal Employer. Admittedly, the salaries were being paid by the Contractor to the members of the Petitioner-Union. Merely because some vouchers towards allowances are paid by Respondent No.1, the same would not amount to payment of wages. Similarly, there is absence of evidence to show substantial supervision and control over the members of the Petitioner-Union by the Respondent No.1-Principal Employer. There is nothing on record to indicate that any disciplinary action was taken against any of the contract workers by the Respondent No.1-Principal Employer. The workers themselves did not tender resignations to Respondent No.1-Principal Employer. If the workers were confident

¶19

1 [(2014) 9 SCC 407] katkam Page No. 2 of 3

¶20

k 3/3 57 wp 1649.24 os.doc

¶21

that Respondent No.1 was their real employer, their natural conduct ought to have been to tender resignations to Respondent No.1. However, the resignations are accepted by Respondent No.2Contractor. To make the case worse, the members of the PetitionerUnion submitted PF forms to Respondent No.2- Contractor and enjoyed the amount of PF. In my view therefore, the Industrial Tribunal has rightly rejected the claim of Petitioner-Union for grant of permanency to its members. No interference is warranted in the impugned Award. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.

¶22

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶23

Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN SUDARSHANRAJALINGAM RAJALINGAM KATKAM KATKAM Date: 2026.01.16 16:33:11 +0530

¶24

Page No. 3 of 3

¶25

katkam

Krantikari Kamgar Union v. Kuoni Travel (I)Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krantikari Kamgar Union v. Kuoni Travel (I)Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kamal R Bulchandani vs Central Depository Services India Ltd.

Habib Bismillah Khan vs Lal Amin Shahi Khan

Kotak Mahindra Bank vs Sanjeev Dawar

Malad Devki Villa Co. operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Rite Pragati Developers

Transinterocein Co. Ltd. vs Transvision Shipping Private Limited

Nirmala Ravi Kandhari vs Majithia Realty Private Limited