Judgment:
P.R. Borkar, J.
1. These two writ petitions are challenging the orders passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Aurangabad in Reference (I.D.A.) No. 207/1989 decided on November 16,1995 whereby the learned Presiding Officer directed the first party (i) i.e. the Manager, Lupin Laboratories Limited, MIDC, Chikalthana (hereinafter referred to as' Lupin Laboratories Ltd.') to reinstate the second party i.e. Jayashri Popat Gaikwad (hereinafter referred to as 'Jayashri Gaikwad') within a period of one month from the date of publication of the award and directed party No. 1 (ii), the Director, Indtek Consultant, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred to as Indtek Consultant) to pay party No. 2 Jayashri Gaikwad full back wages with continuity of service till the date of award within a month, in addition to pay her Rs. 500/- towards special compensation.
2. The two writ petitions are filed because Lupin Laboratories Ltd. was directed to reinstate Jayashri Gaikwad and Indtek Consultant was directed to pay back wages with continuity of service and special compensation.
3. Both these petitions raise same questions of law and facts.
4. It is case of the petitioners that Lupin Laboratories Ltd. is a company manufacturing Pharmaceuticals having manufacturing unit at Aurangabad. Indtek Consultants are independent contractor providing security services and (security) personnel on contract at the factory of Lupin Laboratories Ltd. at the relevant time. It is not disputed that Jayashri Gaikwad was employed as a Lady Searcher and was deployed and posted at the factory. It is case of both the petitioners Lupin Laboratories Ltd. and Indtek Consultants that Jayashri Gaikwad was employed as a Lady Searcher by Indtek Consultants and was deployed and posted at the factory of Lupin Laboratories Ltd., and as such Jayashri Gaikwad was the employee of Indtek Consultants and not of Lupin Laboratories Ltd.
5. It is not disputed that the services of Jayashri Gaikwad were terminated by Indtek Consultants with effect from November 24, 1988 and therefore Jayashri Gaikwad raised industrial dispute challenging the termination of her services demanding reinstatement. Reference was made to the Labour Court, Aurangabad under Section 10(1) and Section 12(5) read with Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6. Jayashri Gaikwad filed statement of claim before the Labour Court. Lupin Laboratories Ltd. and Indtek Consultants also filed their written statement. The written statements filed by Lupin Laboratories Ltd. and Indtek Consultants are consistent with each other. Both have stated that Jayashri Gaikwad was employed by Indtek Consultants and not by Lupin Laboratories Ltd. Indtek Consultants even offered to reinstate Jayashri Gaikwad during conciliation proceedings, but she refused to accept the offer. She insisted that she is the employee of Lupin Laboratories Ltd.
7. In the abovesaid circumstances the obvious question which arises for the consideration of the Labour Court is - which of the two, namely, Lupin Laboratories Ltd. and Indtek Consultants, is the employer of Jayashri Gaikwad. Instead of framing such question and answering it in unambiguous words, following four issues were framed by the Labour Court.
1) Whether the domestic enquiry against the IInd party was fair & proper?
2) Whether the findings recorded by the domestic Tribunal could be doubted as perverse?
3) Whether the order of termination is legal & proper?
4) Whether the IInd party is entitled to reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages?
It answered first two issues as redundant and answered remaining two issues in favour of Jayashri Gaikwad. Ultimately, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court has passed the following order.
(1) The reference is allowed.
(2) The 1st party (I) namely Lupin Laboratories Ltd. MIDC, Chikalthana, Aurangabad is hereby directed to reinstate the IInd party lady workman by name Jayashri Popat Gaikwad, Aurangabad, with it, within a period of one month from the date of publishing of this Award. And the party No one (II) by name Indtek Consultant, to pay her full backwages with continuity of services till the date of Award within a month, in addition to pay her Rs. 500/- towards a special compensation.
(3) The costs of the litigation should be sustained by all the litigants at their own.
8. On the face of it the order is wrong. The judgment does not answer the main question raised by both the petitioners or even by Jayashri Gaikwad. The order passed itself is inconsistent and contradictory. The Labour Court has directed Lupin Laboratories Limited to reinstate Jayashri Gaikwad; whereas it has asked Indtek Consultants to pay back wages with continuity of service and special compensation, without even realising that these two are independent entities, one claiming to be a contractor of other. It is case of Lupin Laboratories Ltd. which case is accepted by Indtek Consultants that Indtek Consultants is the agency providing security services and security personnel and it had provided services of Jayashri Gaikwad personnel. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no way other than to set aside the order of the Labour Court and to remand the case back to the Labour Court, Aurangabad for framing proper issue as to who is employer of Jayashri Gaikwad and then to decide it. It is stated by the advocates before me that most of the evidence is already there, but some additional evidence they may think of adducing in view of interim events. In view of the fact that the matter is pending from 1989, it is necessary to expedite the hearing. In the circumstances the following order is passed.
(i) Both the writ petitions are allowed.
(ii) The order passed by the Labour Court, Aurangabad on November 16, 1995 in Reference (I.D.A.) No. 207/1989 is hereby set aside. The Labour Court is directed to take the matter on the file once again, frame necessary issues, give opportunity to the parties to lead additional evidence and then decide the matter afresh, on or before October 31,2008.
(iii) The record and proceedings be sent to the Trial Court forthwith.
(iv) The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on July 14, 2008.