Bombay High Court
Sanjay Samual Makasare vs Arti Sales Corporation ... on 27 February, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 17.wp.8314.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8314 OF 2016
Sanjay Samual Makasare,
Age : 53 years, Occupation : Labour,
R/o New Bethel Colony,
Station Road, Ahmeangar.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Atri Sales Corporation.
MG Road, Ahmednagar.
Through Kamalkumar Harbansraj Atri,
since deceased through L.Rs.:-
1A) Pramila Kamalkumar Atri,
Age : Major, Occupation : Business.
1B) Amit Kamalkumar Atri,
Age : Major, Occupation : Business.
1C) Nitin Kamalkumar Atri,
Age : Major, Occupation : Business.
All R/o 8, Govindpura,
Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Barde Parag Vijay
Advocate for Respondents : Shri Gawali Amol K..
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 27th February, 2017
Oral Judgment :
*2* 17.wp.8314.16
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated 05.10.2015 by
which the first Labour Court, Ahmednagar has answered Reference (IDA)
No.5/2007 in the negative for the reason that there was no evidence
adduced in the proceedings to indicate that the Petitioner had "employer-
employee relationship" with the Respondent/ Employer.
3 Shri Barde, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, has
strenuously criticized the impugned award. He submits that in the
proceedings being STC No.1492/1994 before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ahmednagar, the Petitioner as well as the co-worker had
deposed before the concerned Court to support the contention that the
Petitioner was working as a Sales Man of the Respondent. He, therefore,
submits that the Petitioner had produced the copy of the said deposition in
xerox form before the Labour Court, which was not considered only for
the reason that the same was xerox copy. Had the Labour Court
considered the said documents which were undisputed, the Labour Court
would not have rejected the Reference.
4 Shri Gawali, learned Advocate for the Respondent/
*3* 17.wp.8314.16
Management, submits that a detailed award has been delivered by the
Labour Court. The oral and documentary evidence adduced has been
considered. The Petitioner did not produce any evidence to indicate that
there was "employer-employee relationship" with the Respondent. A
finding on facts cannot be upset by this Court in it's supervisory
jurisdiction. He, therefore, prays for the dismissal of this petition.
5 There can be no dispute that in the face of a denial of
relationship in the reference proceedings under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947, the workman has to establish the said aspect with documentary
evidence. A mere oral statement, in the absence of documentary evidence,
would not be sufficient to conclude that there is employer-employee
relationship.
6 In the proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ahmednagar, it was the deposition of the Petitioner wherein he claimed
that he was a Sales Man. Another witness along with him stated that he
was working as a Sales Man. The issue before the concerned Court was
not with regard to the relationship shared by the Petitioner with the
Respondent. It is also not the case that the Respondent/ Establishment
produced the Petitioner as a witness to depose in the said proceedings. In
short, in the said proceedings before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
*4* 17.wp.8314.16
the issue of employer-employee relationship was not addressed and
therefore, not decided.
7 Shri Barde submits that in the matter of Ratnam Kandaswami
vs. Atri Sales Corporation (present Respondent) in Writ Petition
Nos.7647/2016 and 7931/2016 decided on 02.08.2016, wherein the
present Respondent was a party, this Court had sustained the directions of
payment of compensation to Ratnam Kandaswami.
8 The said judgment dated 02.08.2016 in Ratnam Kandaswami
case (supra), would be of no assistance to the Petitioner since this Court
has concluded therein that there was employer-employee relationship
between Ratnam and the present Respondent.
9 In the light of the above, I do not find that there is any merit
in this petition. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
