Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1849
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, J.
SRI. GURURAJ SHENOY, S/O LATE UPENDRA SHENOY - Petitioner
Vs.
THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) SHRAMSADAN - Respondent
W.P.No.11249/2015 (L-MW)
C/W. W.P.No.11638/2015(L-RES),
WP.No.19187/2015 (L-RES)
Decided On : 09-10-2020
For the Petitioner:SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SMT. MANJULADEVI.R. KAMADALLI, CGSC, SRI.N. DINESH RAO FOR M/S RAO ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE, SRI. S. SUBBA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.M.NARAYAN BHAT, ADVOCATE
Headnote:
Constitution of India ,1950 - Article 32 - CL (R&A) Act - Sections 31 read with 12, 10(1) and 35 - Entitled for the same wages - Wages - Service - FCI - Contractor at their Food Storage Depot - Whether the FCI can pay only minimum wages to the labour engaged through the contractors under shield of a Labour Contract and thereby deprive the labour who are doing the same or similar work as other labour in other Depots, wages and service conditions that the labour in the other depots were being given - whether the nature of work discharged by contract labour is the same as the work that is discharged by the labour engaged under Direct Payment system or under the No Work No Pay system - Whether the nature of work discharged by the labour in its various depots were one and the same - General Secretary of the FCI Workers’ Union, Kolkata and the President of the FCI Head Load and Daily Wages Workers’ Union, Udupi, filed claim petitions against the FCI, which had registered itself as an establishment under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 contending labour supplied by the Contractor at their Food Storage Depot in Mysuru and Udipi were doing the same and similar nature of the work as labour in other depots, who were being paid either under Direct Payment system or under No Work No Pay system, but however, were not being treated on par with them in terms of wages and service conditions - Specific case FCI has several depots throughout State and it has entered into contracts with Contractors who were required to supply labour - It was their case these Contractors, who were supplying labour, were paying them wages at piece rate basis and this was much lower than the wages being paid to labour who were engaged either under the Direct Payment – Held, Stated principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work will have to be applied in relation to temporary employees (daily wage employees), adhoc employees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and like and the sole factor is required to be considered is as to whether concerned employees were rendering similar duties and responsibilities as are being discharged by like employees holding similar or corresponding posts said judgment even in respect of contractual employees, principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work would be attracted - writ petition of Contractor is concerned, is no doubt true that one of the terms of his licence, as pointed out learned Senior Counsel for the Union, is that the petitioner was required to pay wages, provide holidays, hours of work and other service conditions to labour in same manner as it relates to the labour directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment i.e., FCI. However, FCI, despite this term of license - Public sector undertaking, cannot seek to avoid its liability to pay the same wages to all its workers engaged in task of loading and unloading in its depots, by resorting to a contract basically nullifies a statutory term of the license - Necessary FCI be directed to pay the difference of wages that becomes payable to the labour under the impugned orders by applying the principle of Equal Pay for Equal orders impugned insofar as Transport Contractor is concerned, is modified – Ordered Accordingly
ORDER :
1. W.P.No.11638/2015 is filed by the Food Corporation of India (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘FCI’) challenging the order passed in favour of contract labour working in the Food Storage Depot of FCI, Mysuru, through M/s.Balaji Warehousing Company.
2. W.P.No.19187/2015 is filed by the FCI challenging the order passed in favour of contract labour working in Food Storage Depot at Udupi.
3. W.P.No.11249/2015 is filed by the Contractor who supplied labour to the Food Storage Depot of FCI at Udupi.
4. In all these writ petitions, the validity of the orders passed in favour of the contract labour working at the Food Storage Depot at Udupi and Mysuru, whereby they are entitled for the same wages and the same service conditions on par with the other labour engaged under the No Work No Pay system in the Food Storage Depot of FCI at Udupi and Mysuru and the Direct Payment system being paid at Food Storage Depot FCI at K.R.Nagar and Nanjangud, are under challenge by the FCI and also by a Contractor, who had supplied labour to the FCI.
5. The facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are as follows:
The General Secretary of the FCI Workers’ Union, Kolkata and the President of the FCI Head Load and Daily Wages Workers’ Union, Udupi, filed claim petitions against the FCI, which had registered itself as an establishment under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short, the Act), contending that the labour supplied by the Contractor at their Food Storage Depot in Mysuru and Udipi were doing the same and similar nature of the work as the labour in the other depots, who were being paid either under the Direct Payment system or under the No Work No Pay system, but however, they were not being treated on par with them in terms of wages and service conditions.
6. It was their specific case that the FCI has several depots throughout the State and it has entered into contracts with Contractors who were required to supply labour. It was their case that these Contractors, who were supplying labour, were paying them the wages at piece rate basis and this was much lower than the wages being paid to the labour who were engaged either under the Direct Payment system or under the No Work No Pay system and they were, therefore, entitled to equal pay on the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work.
7. On being notified of the claim applications, the FCI, entered appearance and contested the proceedings.
8. The FCI in the claim relating to the workers at Mysuru, contended that in respect of six depots i.e., at Mysuru, K.R. Nagar, Nanjangud, Kushalnagar, Tumkur and Maddur, they had engaged the services of a Contractor to supply labour and out of the 6 depots, they stated that in respect of three depots namely Mysuru, Kushalnagar and Tumkur, the Contractor was making the payment to the labour, while in respect of the labour engaged through the Contractor at Nanjangud and K.R.Nagar, the payment to the labour was being paid through the Direct Payment system through the Society and in respect of the labour engaged through the Contractor at Maddur, payment was being made on the No Work No Pay system.
9. The FCI, as recorded by the Authority in its order at paragraph 2, admitted that the labour engaged through the Contractors and the labour paid through the Direct Payment system were doing the same work.
10. The FCI, as observed by the authority in paragraph 2 of its order in respect of the claim relating to the labour engaged through the Contractor for its depot in Udupi, stated that there were six Food Storage Depots situated at Udupi, Hassan, Tavarekoppa, Gadikoppa, Bhadravathi and Androth and in respect of the depots at Udupi, Hassan, Taverekoppa and Androth, they were engaging labour through Contractors and in respect of Food Storage Depots at Gadikoppa and Bhadravathi, they were adopting the No Work No Pay system. The FCI also admitted that the nature of work under the contract labour system and the No Work No Pay system were t
