IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
The Mysore Electrical Industries Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Engineering and General Workers Union, Bangalore – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3788 of 2012
Decided On : 23-02-2023
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(1), (d), (2), 11 - Contract Labour Registration Act, 1970 - Section 10, 12, 7 - Appointment of regular employees - Declaration as permanent workmen - Call for records on file of Industrial Tribunal, allow writ petition, quash impugned Award passed in I.D. vide Annexure ‘A’ by issue of a writ in nature of certiorari, consequently, dismiss dispute – Whether order passed by Industrial tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity requiring interference at hands of this Court - Workmen need to be adequately provided for and absorbed and until such absorption would continue to render service as contract labour directly under employer with employer making payment of equal pay for equal work - Para 22.3.
Finding of the Court: Workmen being in employment from year 1995 onwards, it cannot be said that they lack any qualification - Workmen being in employment from year 1995 also indicates that there are vacancies - If that be so, workmen need to be adequately provided for and absorbed and until such absorption would continue to render service as contract labour directly under employer with employer making payment of equal pay for equal work as held by Court - Tribunal has come to a right conclusion that alleged agreement between employer and contractor is sham and camouflage and workers have been engaged for a long period of time and instrumentality of contract workers has been used only to deprive them of their just amounts - Interim order having earlier been passed directing employer to provide work for workmen and same not having been provided, labour court directed employer to comply with said order - Workmen belonging to respondent-Union shall be treated as employees of petitioner - Petitioner shall regularize their services subject to availability of vacancies.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner-employer is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
(b) Or in the alternative pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to pass on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The employer is an undertaking of State of Karnataka engaged in manufacture and sale of power breakers of various capacities. It has its own service rules, Cadre and Recruitment Rules for appointment of regular employees which is what is alleged to have been followed by the employer.
3. The services which are concerned with in the present matter are those related to house-keeping, gardening, loading and unloading which is alleged to require only a few hours a day. It is on that basis that the employer had entrusted those works to labour contractors for lumpsum amount by entering into contract.
4. The contractors are alleged to have engaged their own men to carry out the said work. The housekeeping and gardening work was entrusted to “Sri. Shankar Nursery (associated)” work of loading and unloading was entrusted to “M/s Associated Detective and Security Services.”
5. On 7.03.2000, Sri Shankar Nursery terminated the contract relating to house keeping and gardening. Similarly on 24.03.2000, M/s Associated Detective and Security Services terminated the contract and thereafter withdrew their men.
6. In pursuance thereof, the employer entrusted the work to “M/s Essential Services” vide contract dated 29.03.2000 which also came to be withdrawn by the said contractor vide letter dated 29.11.2000. It is alleged that thereafter the employer has not engaged any contract workers.
7. The persons engaged by Sri Shankar and M/s Associated Detective and Security Services had filed a petition on 31.03.1999 through the respondent Union before the Deputy Labour Commissioner for a declaration that the workers whose names are mentioned in Annexure-A thereto were always employees of the employer and therefore they are entitled to get all the benefits as applicable to the permanent workmen from the date of their joining service. It was contended that the said workers were discharging their work which were perennial in nature along with other permanent workmen and therefore they are entitled to be declared as permanent workmen.
8. The employer opposed the said petition by contending that the persons named in annexure to the petition were not discharging their jobs as mentioned against their name, the employer does not even know them. The work entrusted to the contractors was house-keeping, gardening, loading and unloading which required only few hours of work in a day and therefore, the same cannot be said to be perennial in nature and therefore, they were not entitled to be treated as permanent workmen.
9. The matter having been referred to conciliation, the conciliation efforts failed and as such, the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short ‘ID Act’] referred the points of dispute for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru on 14.12.1999.
10. The points which were referred for adjudication are as under:
(ii) If not, to what relief the workers shown in Annexure ‘A’ who are represented by Engineering and General Workers Union, No. 2, Mill Corner, Ma
Bharat Bank Ltd. vs. Employees
Hari Nandan Prasad vs. Food Corporation of India
Maharashtra SRTC vs. Casteribe Rajya Parivahan Karmchari Sanghatana
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Petroleum Coal Labour Union and Others
Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others
Section 10 of CLRA reads as prohibition of employment of contract labour.
The mere issuance of a prohibition notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act does not automatically lead to the absorption of contract labour as employees of the principal employer; such a determ....
The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the contract as sham without sufficient evidence, and the relationship between the contractor and workers was valid under the Contract Labour Act.
Absorption of contract labour – There is no provision under Section 10 of CLRA Act that workers/employees employed by contractor automatically become employees of appellant and/or employees of contra....
The determination of employment relationships and the validity of contracts lies within the jurisdiction of the industrial adjudicator, particularly when claims of sham contracts are raised.
The court clarified that direct prior demands are not mandatory for initiating conciliation and that the contractor-worker relationship can be adjudicated in the context of unfair labor practices and....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.