Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. M/s Mauriya Udyog Limited has filed the instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award dated 3.6.1985 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court'), vide which the application filed by respondent No. 2-workman under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was allowed and he was held to be entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the petitioner-management; and the order dated 24.3.1987 (An-nexure P-3) passed by the Labour Court, vide which the application filed by the petitioner-management for setting aside the ex-parte award dated 3.6.1985 was dismissed.
2. In the instant case, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Act for computation of Rs. 15,000/- as labour charges, which were illegally not paid by the petitioner-management. It was alleged by respondent-workman that he was engaged for fabrication of machines owned by the petitioner-management for a fixed amount of Rs. 20,000 - as labour charges. After completion of that work, the petitioner-management paid only Rs. 5,000 - to the respondent-workman. The remaining amount of Rs. 15,000 - was not paid, therefore, the respondent-workman filed the aforesaid application, which was contested by the petitioner-management. It was pleaded that the respondent-workman was engaged as an independent contractor for a job. He was required to complete his job within a period of two months, but he failed to do so, therefore, he was not paid the remaining amount, it was further pleaded that relationship of an employer and an employee did not exist between the parties. As such, the claim application filed by the respondent-workman was not maintainable.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the Labour Court framed the following three issues:-
1. Whether there is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties?
2. Whether the application is not maintainable?
3. Whether the applicant is entitled to the amount claimed for?
4. In support of his claim, the respondent-workman examined himself as WW1. On the other hand, the petitioner-management examined only Sh. S.P. Budhiraja to prove the legal notice (Ex.Ml) issued by him at the instance of the respondent-workman. No other eviJence was produced by the petitioner-management inspite of sufficient opportunity provided to it. Therefore, its evidence was closed by order of the Court. On the date of hearing, no body on behalf of the petitioner-management was present and the arguments were heard ex-parte. Vide the impugned award dated 3.6.1985 (Annexure P-2). application filed by the respondent-workman was accepted and it was held by the Labour Court that the relationship of employer and employee were existing between the parties, as the respondent-workman was employed by the petitioner-management for hire, therefore he fell under the definition of 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. It was also held that the respondent-workman had completed the work assigned to him. Therefore, he was entitled to recover the remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/- from the petitioner-management.
5. After the passing of the aforesaid award, on 24.12.1985 the petitioner-management filed an application for setting aside the award dated 3.6.1985 (Annexure P-2) by alleging that the Personnel Officer of the petitioner-management, who was dealing with the present case before the Labour Court, had left the services of the petitioner-management in June, 1985. In his absence, no intimation regarding the date of hearing was communicated to the petitioner-management, as a result of which it could not be represented by any body before the Labour Court on the date of final hearing of the matter. It was pleaded that the petitioner-management was not provided sufficient opportunity to defend the claim raised by respondent-workman. The said application was dismissed by the Labour Court vide its order dated 24.3.1987 (Annexure P-3) while holding that the aforesaid ground was not sufficient for re-hearing the matter as sufficient opportunities were provided to the petitioner-management to lead its evidence and to defend the claim made by the respondent-workman.
6. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner-management has challenged the aforesaid award dated 3.6.1985 (Annexure P-2) as well as the order dated 24.3.1987 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Labour Court.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-management contended that the respondent-workman was engaged as an independent contractor for fabrication of machines owned by the petitioner-management by an agreement. As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the respondent-workman was to engage his own labour for executing the contract and he himself was to pay wages to such labour and was to supervise the work being an independent contractor. He further submitted that this fact has been proved by the legal notice (Ex.M1) given by Sh. S.P. Budhiraja, Advocate, to the petitioner-management on behalf of the respondent-workman. In view of the aforesaid factual position, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no relationships of employer and employee were existing between the parties as the respondent-workman did not fall under the definition of 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. He has further contended that the respondent-workman did not complete his job, therefore, he was not paid the remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/-. He submitted that the finding recorded by the Labour Court on the issue of relationship of employer and employee as well as on the issue of the performance of job is perverse and contrary to the evidence and material available on the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the Labour Court did not provide sufficient opportunities to the petitioner-management to produce its evidence and the final arguments of the case were wrongly heard ex-parte by the Labour Court, as when the Personnel Officer of the petitioner-management was not appearing before the Labour Court, then the notice of the date of hearing should have been issued to the petitioner-management.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-workman, while refuting the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-management, submitted that the Labour Court had rightly come to the conclusion on the basis of evidence available on the record that relationships of employer and employee were existing between the parties. He submitted that the respondent-workman was engaged to do the fabrication work of the machinery of the petitioner-management in its premises. The entire material was to be supplied by the petitioner-management and the entire work was to be carried on under the supervision of the petitioner-management. The respondent-workman was engaged only to provide man power for fabrication of the machinery, for which the petitioner-management agreed to pay Rs. 20,000/-. He further submitted that in the written statement filed by the petitioner-management before the Labour Court, it was not pleaded at all that the petitioner-management received any legal notice on behalf of the respondent-workman from Sh. S.P. Budhiraja. Advocate and the only evidence led by the petitioner-management i.e. the statement of Sh. S.P. Budhiraja, Advocate, is beyond pleadings and the same cannot be looked into. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman further submitted that the aforesaid Advocate has not produced the power of attorney or any authorisation/authority letter given by the respondent-workman in his favour to prove that he was instructed to issue legal notice. Therefore, it was contended by learned counsel that no reliance could have been placed on the legal notice Ex.M1. He submitted that from the evidence, available on the record of the case, led by the parties before the Labour Court, it is clear that the respondent-workman was to do the labour work of fabrication of machines of the petitioner-management for a particular amount. Regarding the order dated 24.3.1987 (Annexure P-3), learned counsel for the respondent-workman submitted that the Labour Court rightly rejected the application of the petitioner-management for re-hearing after setting aside the award, as on the last date of hearing no body on behalf of the petitioner-management was present, and it was not necessary for the Labour Court to issue fresh notice to petitioner-management.
10. After considering the aforesaid rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties. I am of the opinion that there is no merit in the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner-management. In the instant case, the Labour Court, on the basis of evidence available on the record, has recorded a finding of fact to the effect that relationships of employer and employee were existing between the petitioner-management and the respondent-workman. It has also been held that the respondent-workman has completed the work assigned to him and he was entitled for the remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/-. The contention of the petitioner-management that the findings recorded by the Labour Court on both the aforesaid issues are perverse and contrary to the evidence available on the record cannot be accepted. After going through the statements of the respondent-workman and Sh. S.P. Budhiraja, Advocate, which have been annexed with the written statement as Annexures R-1 and R-2, I am of the opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the findings recorded by the Labour Court. The petitioner-management did not lead any evidence before the Labour Court to establish that the respondent-workman was engaged as an independent contractor, except the legal' notice Ex.M1, alleged to have been issued by Sh. S.P. Budhiraja, Advocate, on behalf of the respondent-workman. The said evidence cannot be relied upon as neither the petitioner-management took this plea in its written statement nor the said Advocate has placed on record any authority letter or power of attorney executed by the respondent-workman in his favour instructing him to serve the aforesaid legal notice upon the petitioner-management. Further, the petitioner-management could prove the nature of the job assigned to the respondent-workman by producing the alleged agreement, when it was stated by the petitioner-management that a written agreement was executed while engaging the respondent-workman to do the fabrication job. The petitioner-management even did not lead an iota of evidence to establish that the respondent-workman did not complete the job assigned to him. I also do not find any infirmity or illegality in the order dated 24.3.1987 (Annexure P-3) as there is no justification for re-hearing the matter after setting aside the award dated 3.6.1985 (Annexure P-2).
11. Keeping in view the aforesaid findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court, Ido not find any reason to interfere in the impugned award dated 3.6.1985 (Annexure P-2) and the order dated 24.3.1987 (Annexure P-3). As such, I do not find any merit in theinstant petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
12. No order as to costs.