- (1.)Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the papers on record. Being aggrieved by the award dated 13.11.2003 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference (IT) No. 83 of 1987, present petition has been preferred whereby the Tribunal had directed the petitioner to reinstate six workmen with full back wages and to pay full backwages to the other three workmen who had expired.
(2.)The facts in brief, as per the present petition, are set out as under:
2.1. The respondent no. 1 had raised a dispute before the Labour Commissioner, Vadodara whereby respondent no. 2 along with their partners were joined as parties. After hearing both the sides, the dispute was adjudicated to the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara as Reference No. 83 of 1987. After issuance of notice, the Tribunal passed an ex-parte award on 23.1.1990 against respondent no. 2. On coming to know about the same, respondent no. 2 filed application for setting aside the award dated 23.11.1990 which was allowed.

2.2. Thereafter respondent no. 1 filed an application before the Tribunal praying to join the petitioner firm and respondents no. 8 and 9 as party to the said reference. The Tribunal vide award dated 14.9.2001 allowed the said application against which respondent no. 1 filed an application for setting aside the same. Vide order dated 20.1.2003, the application was allowed and the matter was restored to file.

2.3. As per the application of the respondent no. 1, the petitioner and others were joined as parties to the proceedings and thereafter the impugned award dated 13.11.2003. Being aggrieved by the said award, the present petition is preferred.

(3.)Mr. Mehul Vakharia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that it was stated on behalf of Economic Engineering Corporation that the said company had been closed long back and that the workers in question were working with the said Economic Engineering Corporation and not with the petitioner. He submitted that when such a fact is on record, the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability upon the petitioner firm.
3.1. Mr. Vakharia, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that initially the workers had filed reference only against Economic Engineering Corporation, however, later on when they found that the business of said Corporation has been closed down and another company is working in the said premises, they have joined the petitioners in the reference.

3.2. Mr. Vakharia further submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding the petitioner responsible for the act of the M/s. Economic Engineering Corporation where one of the partners of the petitioner firm was having shares to the extent of 24% in the partnership firm. He submitted that the liability of another firm cannot be thrust upon another partnership firm which was constituted in 1992.

3.3. Mr. Vakharia also submitted that another application at Exhibit 27 was opposed by filing reply at Exhibit 28 before the Tribunal and the partnership deed was also placed on record of this petitioner. He submitted that therefore the liability of earlier partnership firm cannot be enforced upon the petitioner and in doing so the Tribunal has travelled beyond the scope of its jurisdiction.

3.4. Mr. Vakharia has further submitted that the petitioner is a partnership firm and it has a separate legal identity in the eyes of law and that merely because the petitioner firm is carrying on its business on the same plot on rental basis which is under the ownership of respondent no. 2 firm, the liability of respondent no. 2 cannot be fastened upon the petitioner as the petitioner firm has no nexus whatsoever with respondent no. 2.

3.5. Mr. Vakharia submitted that the Tribunal has travelled beyond the terms of reference and that unilaterally the workers cannot be transferred from one partnership firm to another without any agreement between the parties. He submitted that the reference qua the petitioner cannot be maintainable inasmuch as they were never the employers of the workers in question.

3.6. In support of his submissions, Mr. Vakharia has relied upon the following decisions of the Apex Court:

(i) Kundan Sugar Mills v. Ziyauddin and Others, 1960 AIR(SC) 650

(ii) Hochtief Gammon v. Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa and Others, 1964 AIR(SC) 1746

(iii) Manager, Pyarchand Kesarimal Porwal Bidi Factory v. Onkar Laxman Thange, 1970 AIR(SC) 823