SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(SC) 109

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
6th April, 1960
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
The Standard-Vacuum Refining Co. of India Ltd., Appellants
Versus
Their Workmen and another, Respondents.
Civil appeal No. 130 of 1959.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (M/s. G. B. Pai and Sardar Bahadur, Advocates, with him), for appellants; M/s. H. R. Gokhale, S. B. Naik and K. R. Chaudhuary, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1

Advocates:
C.K.DAFTARY, G.B.PAI, H.R.GOKHALE, K.R.CHAUDHARY, S.B.Naik, SARDAR BAHADUR SAHARYA

The employment of contract labour for perennial and necessary work that can be adequately performed by regular workmen is not justified and can be abolished by an industrial tribunal.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - CONTRACT LABOUR - ABOLITION - STANDARD VACUUM REFINING COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED - REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 10 OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - COMPETENCY - INTERFERENCE WITH MANAGEMENT FUNCTION.

Fact of the Case:

The Standard Vacuum Refining Company of India Limited (Company) employed contract labour for cleaning and maintenance work at its refinery. The workmen of the company raised a dispute demanding the abolition of the contract system and absorption of the contract workers into the regular service of the company. The Government of Bombay made a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act), seeking a direction to the company to abolish the contract system and treat the contract workers as its own employees.

Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the reference was competent and that the tribunal was justified in directing the company to abolish the contract system for cleaning and maintenance work. The court found that the work was perennial and necessary for the company's operations, and that it could be adequately performed by regular workmen employed directly by the company.

Issues: 1. Whether the reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was competent? 2. Whether the tribunal was justified in interfering with the management function of the company in determining how its work should be carried out?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The dispute between the company and its workmen regarding the employment of contract labour was an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act. The workmen had a direct interest in the subject matter of the dispute and a substantial interest in the sense that the class to which they belonged was substantially affected thereby. 2. The tribunal was justified in interfering with the management function of the company in determining how its work should be carried out. The contract system for cleaning and maintenance work was not necessary or justified in the circumstances of the case. The work was perennial and necessary for the company's operations, and it could be adequately performed by regular workmen employed directly by the company.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the company's appeal and upheld the tribunal's order directing the company to abolish the contract system for cleaning and maintenance work. The court modified the order to provide that the direction would take effect from the date on which the existing contract with the contractor expired.

Judgment

WANCHOO, J. : This is an appeal by special leave in an industrial mater. The appellant is the Standard Vacuum Refining Company of India Limited (hereinafter called the company). A dispute was raised by the workmen of the company (hereinafter called the respondents) with respect to contract labour employed by the company for cleaning maintenance of the refinery; (plant and premises) belonging to the company. The system in force in the company is that this work is given to contractors for a period of one year from October 1, to September 30. At the time when the reference was made the contract was with Ramji Gordhan and Company for the period from October 1, 1957 to September 30, 1958. On April 27, 1957, the respondents made a demand for abolition of the contract system that prevailed in the company and for absorbing the workmen employed through the contractors into the regular service of the company with retrospective effect from the date of their employment in the company through the contractors. The case of the respondents was that the contractor used to change sometimes from year to year with the result that the workmen employed by the previous contractor were thrown out of employment. As an instance, it as said that previous to October 1, 1957, the contract was with Gowri Construction Company. That company employed 67 workmen to do the work. But when the contract was given to Ramji Gordhan and Company, all these 67 workmen were thrown out of employment, though 40 of them were subsequently re-employed as fresh employees by Ramji Gordhan and Company. The result of the system therefore was that there was no security of service to the workmen who were in effect doing the work of the company. Besides the contractors were paying much less to the workmen than the amount paid by the company to its unskilled regular workmen. Further the workmen of the contractors were not entitled to other benefits and amenities such as provident fund gratuity, bonus, privilege leave, medical facilities and subsidized food and housing to which the regular workmen of the company were entitled. The work was of a permanent nature, but the contract system was introduced to deny the workmen the rights and benefits which the company gave to its own workmen.

2. The dispute was taken to the conciliation officer. When conciliation failed, the Government of Bombay made the following reference on May 13, 1958:

"The contract system for cleaning the premises and plant should be abolished and workers working in the refinery through the Ramji Gordhan and Company should be treated as workers of the Standard -Vacuum Refining Company of India Limited, Bombay and wage-scales, conditions of service, etc., that are applicable to the workers of the refinery be made applicable to them. Past service of these workers should be counted and they should be treated as continuously in the service of the STANVAC refinery from the date of their entertainment."

3. The company resisted the claim and raised two main contentions. In the first place it was contended that the reference under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947, (hereinafter called the Act) was incompetent. In the second place it was contended that the work done by the contractor s workmen was not germane to the manufacturing process and was therefore entrusted to the contractor. If the workmen of the contractor were not satisfied with the conditions of service they could take up the matter with the contractor and the company had nothing to do with it. As to the difference between the wages and benefits and amenities of the regular workmen, it was said that the work of the two sets of workmen was very different and that in any case this was a matter between the contractor and its workmen. The contractor was an independent employer and it was incorrect to say that the real employer was the company. It was for the company to decide what was the best method of carrying on its business and the industria



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top