Sri D K Satisha Vs the Senior Divisional Manager

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU, PERTAINING TO ANNEXURE-C AND QUASH THE AWARD DATED 11.02.2019 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, BENGALURU IN I.D.NO.11/2012 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C, SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORDS AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶23

3 -

¶24

NC: 2026:KHC:9163-DB WP No. 42875 of 2019

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶28

The present writ petition has been filed impugning the award dated 11.02.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore, (for short ‘the C.G.I.T.’) in I.D.No.11/2012.

¶29

The petitioner/workman was appointed as a daily wage worker by M/s. Diesel Engineers, Bangalore, to operate and maintain the generator set i.e., to switch on and switch off the generator whenever the power goes off or fluctuates at their Mandya Office. A written contract for switching on and switching off the generator set as well as its maintenance, a contract between the LIC of India and M/s. Diesel Engineers was entered into. The Contractor, M/s. Diesel Engineers engaged the petitioner / workman for maintenance and operation of the generator set on daily wage basis.

¶30

The petitioner made an application for regularising his services in LIC of India and when his request was not favourably disposed of, he raised the industrial dispute.

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:9163-DB WP No. 42875 of 2019

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The C.G.I.T., after considering the evidence and the

¶35

material brought on record as well as the fact that there was no privity of contact between the petitioner / workman and the LIC of India, has dismissed the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner.

¶36

We have gone through the impugned award. We do

¶37

not think that the learned C.G.I.T. has committed an error of law or jurisdiction, which requires an interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶38