Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 962
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Ambadas – Appellant
Versus
Exide Industries Limited. – Respondent
WP No. 1676 of 2016
Decided On : 09-08-2016
For the Appellant : Shri Gaware Niteen V.
For the Respondent: Shri Dipak Changade., Shri S.W.Munde, Shri V.N.Upadhye
The recognized union is the sole bargaining agent, and petitioners must have a legal connection with the industry to challenge orders related to contract labour. The demand for absorption of members by the petitioners was not in the interest of contract labourers.
Headnote:
Contract Labour - Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Section 15 - Section 10 - Section 22 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were aggrieved by the order revoking the registration certificate of the factory for engaging contract labour system. The recognized union was directed to participate in discussions for absorption of contract labourers in a phased manner. The petitioners challenged the order on the grounds of lack of hearing and the authority's conflict of interest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the order as they did not represent any contract labourer and had no legal connection with the factory. The recognized union was the sole bargaining agent, and the petitioners' demand for absorption of their members was not in the interest of contract labourers.
Issues: Locus standi of the petitioners, conflict of interest of the authority, demand for absorption of members by the petitioners
Ratio Decidendi: The recognized union is the sole bargaining agent, and the petitioners must have a legal connection with the industry to challenge the order. The demand for absorption of members by the petitioners was not in the interest of contract labourers.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 02.07.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short “the CLRA Act, 1970”).
3. The Petitioners submit that Petitioner No.1 was engaged as a contract labourer by Respondent No.1Factory through the contractor. He had worked for about 27 months and thereafter, has been disengaged. He is not in employment for quite sometime.
4. Petitioner No.2 is said to have resigned from the services of Respondent No.1. It is stated that he had subsequently challenged his removal on the ground of illegal termination. The said challenge has been rejected.
5. Petitioner No.3 is the Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sanghatana which claims to have membership amongst the persons engaged by Respondent No.1 Factory. It claims to be representing the workers and hence, has the right to espouse their cause.
6. It is contended that the Petitioner Union had moved an application dated 04.07.2013 to the Honorable Labour Minister, who was the Chairperson of the State Contract Labour Advisory Board at Mumbai, claiming that about 80 workers, who had become the members of the Petitioner Union in 2010, should be reinstated in service. It was also demanded that if 51 workers are made permanent in service, the Petitioner Union would take a positive stand with regard to the proposed abolition of contract labour system in the factory.
7. Pursuant to the above letter, Respondent No.4/ Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Ahmednagar issued the notice to the Respondent No.1 Factory and the President of the Petitioner No.3 Union to participate in the meeting which was to be convened in the office of Shri Hasan Mushrif, Honourable Minister for Labour, so as to discuss the grant of permanency to 51 workers, who were not in employment. It is strenuously submitted by the Petitioners that since the complaints filed by the Petitioner Union were kept pending, a writ petition was filed bearing Writ Petition No.2317/2014 before the learned Division Bench of this Court. By order dated 08.10.2014, the learned Division Bench disposed of the said Writ Petition after recording the statement that the issue as regards abolition of contract labour system is under active consideration of the State Contract Labour Advisory Board.
8. A letter was issued in the matter on 13.03.2015 whereby the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai informed the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nashik that the Government had approved the cancellation of 'registration' granted to Respondent No.1 Factory for engaging contract labour system. Consequentially, by order dated 17.03.2015, Respondent No.1 was informed that the registration has been revoked and as such, the Factory would not be able to engage contract labourers.
9. Respondent No.1 Factory preferred Appeal CLA No.1/2015 before the Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the CLRA Act, 1970. By the impugned order dated 02.07.2015, the order under challenge dated 17-03-2015 revoking the registration certificate of the Factory was set aside and Respondent No.1 Factory and the recognized union were directed to participate in discussions for absorption of contract labourers in a phased manner.
10. Shri Gaware, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, has strenuously criticized the impugned order. His basic contention is that the order of revocation dated 17-03-2015 has been passed by the same Authority which has passed the impugned order dated 02-07-2015. As such, the Authority which had passed the first order, sat in appeal over it's own order while holding the charge of the Appellate Authority.
11. It is further submitted that the Petitioners were not heard by the Appellate Authority and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. Since the Petitioners have brought to light the fact that the contract labourers were engaged on the manufacturing activity, that the
