Through: Ms. Namrata Mukim, Standing Counsel for MCD with Ms. Niharika Singh, Advocate with Mr. Vipin Kumar, JSA, MCD v. GANGA VERMA & ANR

1. Challenge made in the present petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, pertains to an award dated 09.10.2017 in LIR NO. 8730/2016 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Presiding Officer, Labour Court – XIX, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the management was directed to reinstate the services of the claimant on the same job with effect from 01.12.2014 i.e., the day of termination of her services along with 75% of back wages and all consequential benefits, including promotion (if any).

2. The workman had approached the Labour Court claiming in her claim application that she had joined the services of the East Delhi Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as „Management 1‟) through M/s Gaurav Enterprises (hereinafter referred to as „Management 2‟) as a Security Guard since May 2012, and was drawing a salary of Rs.8,632/- till her services were terminated on 01.12.2014. During the course of her employment, she was employed at the Community Centre and Recreation Centre maintained by Management 1. It was stated that Management 1 was the principal employer and that Management 2 was an unauthorized contractor. It was claimed that it was a sham entity.

3. Management 1 appeared and filed its written statement wherein they objected to the claimant disclosing any cause of action against it. They claimed that they had entered into an agreement with Management 2 in the year 2007, vide which the latter had agreed to provide private security for Kasturba Gandhi Hospital, which was under control of Management 1. The security guards were hired on contractual and temporary basis, accordingly, there existed no employer-employee relationship between the claimant and Management 1. The engagement was made by Management 2, and that too on temporary basis. Management 2 has also filed its written statement, stating that the contract came to an end in May, 2014. The workman was engaged by Management No.1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Management 1 contended that, while passing the impugned award, the Labour Court erred in concluding that Management 2 merely acted as an agent of Management 1 for supplying security guards under the contract, and that an employer-employee relationship existed between the workmen and Management 2.

5. The aforesaid contentions are refuted by learned counsel appearing for Management 2. It was submitted that Management 2 was only facilitating the engagement as an agent of Management 1.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant defended the impugned order. It was submitted that Management 2 had no license to operate and that no appointment letter was issued to the claimant. Learned counsel further submitted that the workmen, including the present claimant, had earlier approached the concerned Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as they were being paid wages lower than the rates fixed by the Government of NCT of Delhi. In the said proceedings, Management 1 was directed to pay the arrears of minimum wages along with compensation to the workmen.

7. A perusal of the record would show that Management 1 had floated a tender no. 10306 for the engagement of private security services for hospitals. The bid no. 1205 of submitted by Management 2 was accepted, and the Contract was granted to it vide communication dated 31.10.2007.

8. While the claimant asserted that she was appointed with Management 1 through Management 2, the documentary evidence on record concededly, would show that the claimant was employed without the issuance of any appointment letter and was not provided statutory benefits such as ESI, PF, weekly holidays, leave, overtime wages, conveyance allowance, or annual increments. Management 1 has claimed that upon invoices being raised, it had released the amounts to Management 2, who in turn paid the wages to the workmen including the claimant.

9. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Award passed in earlier proceedings dated 31.05.2016 under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, a perusal thereof shows that the said proceedings are not concerned with the issue regarding whether there existed any employeremployee relationship between the workmen/claimant and Management 1. A perusal of the said Award would show that Management 1 had appeared and undertaken to pay the wages. It is trite that the burden to prove that the claimant was in the employment of a particular management, primarily lies upon the person asserting such relationship.

10. The scope of interference by this Court while exercising Writ jurisdiction is limited. It is well settled that the High Court does not act as an appellate forum over findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. In this regard, reference may be made to International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers Union[1], wherein the Supreme Court held as under:-

11. At this stage, it would also be apposite to refer to the observations of a Coordinate Bench of this Court examining the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The findings returned by the Labour Court do not disclose any perversity or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference. This Court has considered the scope of its writ jurisdiction in „Ritz Theatre Private Limited v. Ramesh Chandra‟ in W.P.(C) 6173/2024, wherein it was held as under: