Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Khanwilkar, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
JAGGU AND OTHERS ETC – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8094 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 8334 OF 2011
Decided on : 05-07-2019
(a) Labour law - Claim for equal pay for equal work - Contract labour not pleading and establishing that they discharged duties same or similar to direct/regular employees - Onus cannot be shifted to employer to show that duties discharged by contract labour was not same or similar to direct/regular employees and how far the principles of equal pay for equal work claimed as enshrined under Article 14 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India would be attracted. (Para 30)
(b) Minimum Wages Act, 1948 - Section 20(1) r/w clause (v) of explanation in notification dated 12th July, 1994 - Enacted fixing minimum wages and ensuring payment thereof - No scope of enquiry to examine the principles of equal pay for equal work - Such dispute to be determined by a adjudicatory mechanism provided under the law. (Para 34)
(1969) 1 SCC 873 - Relied upon
(1997) 9 SCC 377; 2001(7) SCC 1 - Referred
(c) Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Section 10(1) r/w Rules 25(iv) and (v), Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971 - Does not provide for total abolition of the contract labour, but only for its abolition in certain circumstances - Rule 25 obliges contractor to abide by terms of licence and consequences of non-compliance thereof - Instantly contractor registered u/s 12 of the Act - Contract extinguishing on notification of prohibition - Mere assertion of fact that contract labour allowed to continue after publication of prohibition notification performing same or similar kind of work in the establishment of the principal employer - Not sufficient to entitle the labour to wages notified by the NJCS, (Para 36, 37, 38, 43)
(1996) 10 SCC 599 - Relied upon
(1985) 1 SCC 630 - Distinguished
Facts of the case:
The complaint of the applicant Jaggu under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 before the prescribed authority was that the rates of wages of SAIL which were governed by various settlements/agreements entered between the management and the registered Union of regular employees of SAIL are legally enforceable and the applicant is also entitled to the wages and such other service benefits as per those settlements after a prohibition notification has been published by the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.
The prescribed authority allowed the claim petitions with five times of compensation in favour of 2040 contract employees who have been represented by Ispat Khadan Janta Mazdoor Union, Koteshwar Limestone Mine, Gairtalai, Katni.
The order of the Payment of Wages Authority was challenged by the appellant SAIL by way of writ petition which was partly allowed holding that the justice would be met if the respondents (employees) are allowed 6% interest on the amount payable to each of them as compensation from the date of passing of the impugned order of the authority till its payment. It was further challenged before the Division Bench of the High Court that came to be dismissed with a modification that instead of grant of 6% interest as compensation, a consolidated sum of Rs. 5 crore be paid towards compensation to the aggrieved employees.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment cannot be sustained.
Result: Civil Appeal No. 8094 of 2011 filed by Steel Authority of India Ltd. allowed and Civil Appeal No. 8334 of 2011 filed by the employees dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Ajay Rastogi, J.
The present appeals arise from the proceedings initiated by the workers under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 who had been in employment after issuance of the prohibition notification dated 17th March 1993 under the Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970(hereinafter being referred to as "CLRA Act") upto April, 1996 in the captive mine of the Steel Authority of India(hereinafter called as "SAIL") in Kuteshwar Limestone Mines(Barhi), Gairtalai, Distt. Jabalpur.
2. The indisputed facts which has come on record are that after issuance of the prohibition notification dated 17th March, 1993 by the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, 1970 no fresh agreement, in the interregnum period (17th March, 1993 to April, 1996) was executed between the appellant and the contract labour and the agreement in existence was extended from time to time by the competent authority and the contract labour was allowed to continue on the same terms & conditions till their services were terminated by the contractor after they had proceeded on strike in the month of April, 1996.
3. The contract labours (2040 employees) of Kuteshwar limestone mines who had worked in the establishment of SAIL after issuance of the prohibition notification dated 17th March, 1993 filed their claim applications in the year 1998 on different dates under Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.4. Before we advert to the question raised in the instant appeals, it may be relevant to take the brief history of the matter for proper appreciation. The erstwhile contract labourers(respondents herein) worked at the captive Limestone and Dolomite mines in the establishment of the appellant SAIL initially filed writ petitions claiming regularisation with back wages in view of the law laid down by three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation and Others Vs. United Labour Union and Others, 1997(9) SCC 377 wherein it was held that on issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, the logical and legitimate consequences would be that the erstwhile contract labourer covered by the sweep of such abolition for the activities concerned would be entitled to be treated as direct employee of the employer on whose establishment they were earlier working and they would be entitled to be treated as regular employees from the day on which the contract labour system in the establishment for the work which they were doing gets abolished. The aforesaid judgment of this Court was subsequently overruled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others, 2001(7) SCC 1.
5. The Single Judge of the High Court earlier allowed the writ petitions but the matter was finally remitted back to the High Court to decide as per the law laid down in the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others (supra).
6. It is to be noted that the application filed by Jaggu was considered to be the lead application which has been placed on record (Annexure P-1 of the paper book) and the only fact stated by him in the application was that the applicant was employed in the Captive Mine of the SAIL in Kuteshwar Limestone Mines (Barhi), Gairtalai, Distt. Jabalpur on 1st September, 1984 and was still in that employment at the time of filing of an application and worked as a skilled workman and was working as Sikor/Loader/Suitor/Rake Loader and that the employment of Kuteshwar Limestone Mines is a scheduled employment within the meaning of Section 2(e ) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and rates of wages of the workers of SAIL are governed by various settlements/agreements entered into between the management and the Union which are legally binding and are the wages to which employees of SAIL are entitled on the basis of contract of service, agreement and/or otherwise.
7. The extract pleadings of his applicat
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
