Back
2007 Supreme(SC) 35
2007(1) Supreme 799
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Gauhati High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.
Industrial Paper (Assam) Ltd. Emps. Union—Appellant
versus
Management Assam Industrial Dev. Corpn. Ltd.—Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 7990 of 2004
Decided on 10-1-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : P.K. Goswami, Sr. Advocate, B. Aggarwal, A. Henry and Rajiv Mehta, Advocates.
For the Respondent : Rohington Nariman, Sr. Advocate, Arunabh Chowdhury, Ms. Pragya Singh Bahel and Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Advocates.
Headnote:LABOUR LAW—Dispute regarding non-payment of salaries of workmen employed by Respondent AIDC in its Extensible Sack Kraft Paper Project under Industrial Paper (Assam) Ltd. i.e. IPAL, raised by appellant—Respondent questioned maintainability of reference on plea that members of appellant Union being employees of a separate Company IPAL, could not claim to be employees of AIDC which was only a Promoter Company—Labour Court passed award in favour of appellant Union—High Court allowed the writ filed by AIDC holding that when workmen were not employees of AIDC, question of giving them benefit as done by Labour Court did not arise—Appeal—AIDC was a nodal agency of the Government of Assam and was acting only as a promotional organisation for promoting IPAL at initial stages—AIDC could not be branded as a owner of the establishment—Impugned judgment could not be faulted with.
Held : There is no claim that the members of appellant union were employees of AIDC. In the reference IPAL was not a party. It is evident from materials on record that IPAL was promoted by AIDC and was incorporated in 1974. It was not even subsidiary of AIDC.(Para 10)
Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have categorically found that IPAL was a separate, independent company and the members of the appellant union are not employees of AIDC. That being so the conclusions of learned Single Judge and the Division Bench that AIDC cannot be saddled with the responsibility of those employees is irreversible. (Para 11)
The Memorandum and Article of Association of both AIDC and IPAL as well as the Certificate of Incorporation of IPAL has been referred to by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment. It has, with reference to those come to hold that they have separate independent existence having independent Board of Directors. The Notification dated 22.2.1988 by which Board of Directors of IAPL has also been referred to for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that both the companies have independent existence. AIDC was a nodal agency of the Government of Assam and was acting only as a promotional organization for promoting IPAL at the initial stages. As is rightly pointed out by the AIDC cannot be branded as a owner of the establishment.(Para 12)
Above being the position, the judgment of the Division Bench affirming that of learned Single Judge cannot be faulted and the appeal stands dismissed. Subject to what is stated above, dismissal of the appeal shall not stand in the way of the concerned employees or recognized Unions making claim for arrears of salaries or claims to be due from IPAL. (Para 15)
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. The writ appeal was directed against the common judgment and order dated 7.5.2002 passed by learned Single Judge wherein the writ petition filed by the respondent No.2 i.e. Management of Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (in short the ‘AIDC’) was allowed while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Both the writ petitions were directed against the Award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Assam, at Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Labour Court’). The appellant claims to be the Union of employees of M/s Industrial Papers (Assam) Ltd. (in short the ‘IPAL’). Learned Single Judge held that there is a clear cut finding in the Award to the effect that workmen were not employees of AIDC, and therefore, the question of giving them benefit as was done by the Labour Court did not arose and consequently that part of the Award was quashed.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The appellant, being the registered Trade Union, looking after the welfare of its members employed by AIDC in its Extensible Sack Kraft. Paper Project (for sake, called as ‘ESKPP’) under IPAL, raised a dispute for non-payment of salaries of its members by AIDC after October 1998 on the plea that the members of the appellant were not the employees of AIDC but of the IPAL. Accordingly the appropriate Govt. vide notification dated 20.2.1999 referred the following issues to the Labour Court for adjudication. The issues are quoted below:
“1. Whether the management of Assam Industrial Development Corporation is justified to deny as owner of the Sack Kraft Paper Project of M/s Industrial Papers (Assam) Ltd. (IPAL), though they have signed an agreement with a contractor as ‘owner’ of the Sack Kraft Paper Project, Dhing District-Nagaon, Assam.
2. Whether the Assam Industrial Development Corporation AIDC is justified to deny to take the responsibility of the Industrial Papers (Assam) Ltd. employees, though the employees were appointed by the AIDC through the advertisement published in the News Paper.
3. Whether The management of AIDC is justified by not absorbing or engaging the employees of the IPAL, in their other Promoted industries or give them salary regularly though they have failed to install or run the proposed Paper Mill in Dhing, Nagaon.
4. If not, then the said affected employees are entitled for either regular monthly salary from the management or absorption in the other Industrial Units promoted by the Assam Industrial Development Corporation, Guwahati.
5. And the AIOC should not recruit or appoint new employees to say other their Promoted Industries until and unless the employees of the Industrial paper are engaged or absorbed by the Management.”
3. The Labour Court issued notice dated 22.5.1999 to the respective parties to the alleged disputes. In pursuance of the notice, both the AIDC and the appellant filed their respective written statements and additional written statements. AIDC, in their written statement, raised preliminary objection, specifically with the issues under reference, inter-alia, questioning the maintainability of the reference stating that the purported dispute referred to by the Notification is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called as the Act’) and the Notification issued by the Government cannot constitute an industrial dispute because AIDC was not a proper or necessary party and the members of the appellant, being employees of a separate company i.e. IPAL, cannot claim to be employees of AIDC which was only a Promoter Company.
4. Apart from the preliminary objection so raised as mentioned above, AIDC gave its reply in respect of all other issues. Regarding issue No.1, it was stated that AIDC, being a promotional organization, had also promoted th
