Contract labourers employed by a contractor to do work for an employer are entitled to the benefits of the settlement/award/agreement applicable to the direct employees of the employer, as per the combined effect of section 3(13) and (14) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - MAHARASHTRA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNIONS AND PREVENTION OF UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES ACT, 1971 - SECTION 3(13), 3(14) - BOMBAY INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT - SECTION 3(13), 3(14) - CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION AND ABOLITION) ACT, 1970 - CONTRACT LABOURERS EMPLOYED BY CONTRACTOR - ENTITLED TO BENEFITS OF SETTLEMENT/AWARD/AGREEMENT APPLICABLE TO DIRECT EMPLOYEES OF PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, employed as contract labourers for loading and unloading sugar bags in the factory of the first respondent, filed complaints alleging unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act). The Industrial Court dismissed the complaints, holding that the petitioners were not employees of the first respondent and thus not entitled to the benefits of the settlement/award/agreement applicable to the direct employees.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the petitioners were entitled to be treated as employees of the first respondent and entitled to the benefits of all the awards/agreements/settlements applicable to the direct employees of the first respondent, as per the combined effect of section 3(13) and (14) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were employees of the first respondent and entitled to the benefits of the settlement/award/agreement applicable to the direct employees. 2. Whether the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaints without considering the petitioners' contention that they were entitled to be treated as employees of the first respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the Industrial Court erred in not considering the petitioners' contention that they were entitled to be treated as employees of the first respondent, as per the combined effect of section 3(13) and (14) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the same benefits as the direct employees carrying out similar work, and that the Industrial Court misdirected itself in assuming that the petitioners could not get benefits of the settlement/award/agreement which operated between the first respondent and its employees.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the order of the Industrial Court and remanded the complaints back to the Industrial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law and the observations made in the judgment. The Industrial Court was directed to permit the complainants to implead the third respondent as a party respondent, call for copies of settlements, awards or agreements binding between the first respondent and its employees and also the third respondent and its employees, the agreement of sale between the first and third respondents, ascertain the actual amounts, if any, due to the petitioners and determine by whom they are payable.

JUDGMENT - B.N. SRIKRISHNA, J.:---This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the Industrial Court dated 21st April, 1988, made in complaint (ULP) Nos. 204 to 224 of 1985, dismissing the complaints under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The facts material for disposing of this writ petition are : The first respondent is a company engaged in the manufacture of sugar. At the material time, petitioners 1 to 17, 19 and 20 were engaged as Hamals doing the work of loading and unloading of sugar bags in the factory of the first respondent, ostensibly through petitioner No. 18 and respondent No. 5. Though actually employed by the first respondent, petitioner No. 18 and respondent No. 5 were shown as contractors, carrying out the work of loading and unloading on contract. There were regular contracts entered into between the first respondent and petitioner No. 18 and respondent No. 5 which were registered under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The first respondent was registered as a Principal Employer and the two contractors were issued licenses for engaging Contract Labour. It was the grievance of the petitioners that they were discriminated against in the matter of wages and other benefits as the wages and other benefits available to the employees directly employed by the first respondent were very much higher. The petitioners filed Complaints (ULP) Nos. 204 to 224 of 1985 before the Industrial Court at Pune alleging unfair labour practice within the meaning of Items 5, 6 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The Industrial Court after recording evidence and hearing the parties raised the following issues, answered them in the negative and dismissed the complaints by its common order which is impugned in this writ petition.

"ISSUES :

1. Whether the complainants prove that respondent 1 has threatened them with discharge or dismissal, if they join a union, viz. Rashtriya Sakhar Kamgar Sangh ?

2. Whether they further prove that respondent 1 has shown favouritism or partiality to one set of workers, regardless of merits ?

3. Whether they further prove that respondent 1 has failed to implement Award, settlement or agreement ?

4. Whether they further prove that respondent 1 has indulged in any act of force or violence ?"

Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court by the present writ petition.

3. At the out set, in view of the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents about the maintainability of the writ petition based on certain observations made by the Supreme Court in (Shramik Uttarsh Sabha v. Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. and others)1, 1995 (I) C.L.R. 607, Mr. Ganguli for the petitioners stated that he was not pressing the allegation of unfair labour practice within the meaning of Item 6 of Schedule IV of the Act and that he was only pressing the allegations of unfair labour practices under Items 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Act.

4. Mr. Ramaswami, learned Advocate appearing for the first respondent, contends that the Industrial establishment of the first respondent in which the petitioners were engaged as contract labours was sold to the second respondent some time in 1988 and as such the first respondent has no liability in the matter. Though this fact occurred during the pendency of the complaints and the Industrial Court had adverted to this fact, no attempt was made to place on record the agreement between the first and third respondents so as to ascertain the exact liability of the two respondents by ascertaining the terms of the said agreement. Mr. Ramaswami urged that, under the judgment of the Supreme Court, the complaints and the writ petition would be barred and both would have to be dismissed. It is true that in the judgment in Raymond Woollen Mills case (supra) the Supreme Court has held that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis