Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 235
In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
DILIP B. BHOSALE, A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, JJ.
Abdul Latheef & Another - Petitioners
Versus
Coromandel Fertilizers Limited & Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 998 of 2007
Decided On : 01-05-2015
For the Appellants: A. Satya Prasad, Learned Senior Counsel.
For the Respondents: C.R. Sridharan, Learned Senior Counsel.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 12 (5) – Workmen – Reference – Case of workmen appellants is that they have been working as Pump Operator and Electrician respectively in respondent company respondent company, in order to meet its daily requirements of water, sunk bore wells and established a plant under the control of its utilities department at a place away from factory services of the appellants were engaged for maintenance of the said water plant – First appellant was appointed on second appellant was appointed on further case is that their work was of perennial nature and they were provided with bachelor’s accommodation at plant site and were required to stay all 24 hours of day and throughout year without weekly off or holidays or earned leave or casual leave or sick leave or substitute were also supplied with talkie to contact with Deputy Manager of utilities plant – They were assigned Provident Fund numbers and were also covered by Employee State Insurance Scheme other employees who were working in company and discharging identical duties were getting higher wages, the appellants were not being paid those wages further case is that in order to avoid payment of wages on par with the regular staff, the respondent employed a contractor and using their services through the said contractor so, one styling himself as a contractor, issued a notice of one month to the appellants indicating the notice for termination of their services had no connection with the appellants – Whether reference under Section 12 (5) of Act, 1947 can be made at the instance of two workmen without intervention of the Union – Held, Respondents seek to distinguish these decisions on the ground that in all of them the dispute was raised by a single workman, whereas in the present case six of the workmen have joined in making a demand urge that a dispute ceases to be an individual dispute and becomes an industrial dispute when more than one workman, joins in it. It is true that in the decisions cited above the dispute was raised by a single workman. But the reasons on which these decisions rest, viz., that the policy behind the Industrial Disputes Act is to protect workmen as a class against, unfair practices and not to enact special provisions for enforcing the claims of individual workmen, would equally militate against the contention that a dispute which is essentially individual in character would become an industrial dispute merely because two persons have joined in it. What imparts to the dispute of a workman the character of industrial dispute is that it affects the rights of the workmen as a That is why the above decision lay down that the, dispute of a single workman would become an industrial dispute when it is sponsored by a Union or by a considerable number of workmen; for it (an then be taken that it does affect them as a class. No hard and fast rule can down as to the number of workmen whose association will convert an individual into an industrial dispute. That must depend on the facts of each case, and the nature of the dispute group might even be a minority, as held by this Court – Writ Appeal shall stand disposed.
A. Ramalingeswara Rao, J.
1. This Writ Appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.9595 of 1998 dated 12.10.2007.
2. The short but important question of law raised in this Writ Appeal is whether a reference under Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) can be made at the instance of two workmen without intervention of the Union. The learned single Judge held against the workmen.
3. The case of the workmen, who are the appellants herein, is that they have been working as Pump Operator and Electrician respectively in the respondent company. The respondent company, in order to meet its daily requirements of water, sunk infilteration bore wells and established a plant under the control of its utilities department at a place six kilometres away from the factory. The services of the appellants were engaged for maintenance of the said water plant. The first appellant was appointed on 10.09.1984, whereas the second appellant was appointed on 03.12.1982. Their further case is that their work was of perennial nature and they were provided with bachelor’s accommodation at the plant site and were required to stay all the 24 hours of the day and throughout the year without weekly off or holidays or earned leave or casual leave or sick leave or substitute, etc. They were also supplied with walkie talkie to contact with the Deputy Manager of the utilities plant. They were assigned Provident Fund numbers and were also covered by Employee State Insurance Scheme. Though the other employees who were working in the company and discharging identical duties were getting higher wages, the appellants were not being paid those wages. Their further case is that in order to avoid payment of wages on par with the regular staff, the respondent employed a contractor and using their services through the said contractor. While so, one E.Gurunadha Rao, styling himself as a contractor, issued a notice of one month to the appellants on 30.10.1991 indicating the notice for termination of their services. In fact, the said E.Gurunatha Rao had no connection with the appellants, as they were not appointed by him. However, he was bringing wage packets of the appellants once in a month or once in two months along with officers of the respondent company. Prior to the said contractor, some other contractors were also doing like that. However, there is no employer and employee relationship between them and the said contractors. After receipt of the said notice, the appellants raised an industrial dispute before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Visakhapatnam. Pending the dispute, the appellants filed W.P.No.15434 of 1991 and the same was disposed of on 29.11.1991 at the admission stage. It is their further case that though the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.375, Labour, Employment, Nutrition & Technical Education (Lab.II) Department, dated 05.06.1981, prohibiting employment of contract labour in the jobs performed by the appellants, the respondent has been continuing the same. They rendered continuous service of more than one year preceding the date of termination and termination of their services is illegal. Accordingly, when the conciliation failed, on reference by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.649, dated 06.04.1993, the reference was registered as I.D.No.123 of 1995 by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam (for short, the Labour Court).
4. The respondent filed a counter stating that the appellants were never their employees and their work did not fall within the 3 categories of work for which the engagement of contract labour was prohibited in G.O.Ms.No.375 dated 05.06.1981. It is also their case that the water pumping operations do not form part of the factory. The jobs alleged to have been performed by the appellants at the site were not “electrical wiring and winding jobs, casual odd jobs or canteen operations” which were prohibited under the said Government Order. The appellants
