Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 772
High Court Of Calcutta
Tapan Kumar Dutt, J.
PARIKSHIT MISHRA - Appellant
Versus
INDIAN IRON AND STEEL CO.LTD. - Respondent
W. P. 10755 (W) Of 2004
Decided On : 12/08/2006
L.K.Gupta, L.K.PAL, N.MUKHARJI, SK.NIMATULLAH
The provisions of sections 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot be made applicable to a proceeding pending under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
Headnote:
CONTRACT LABOUR - REGULATION AND ABOLITION ACT, 1970 - SECTION 10 - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 33, 33A - Petitioners, contract labourers, sought regularisation of their services in respondent company - Appropriate Government has no power to direct absorption of contract labour in establishment of principal employer - Petitioners' application under section 33A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was misconceived and not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, engaged as contract labourers in respondent company's Kulty Works, sought regularisation of their services. They filed a writ petition in 1993, which was disposed of with a direction to approach the appropriate Government for referring their case to a committee to investigate whether their employment was liable to be prohibited under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The petitioners made representations to the Government, but no action was taken. They filed another writ petition in 2001, which was also disposed of without interference. The petitioners then filed an application before the Additional Labour Commissioner, West Bengal, under section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking initiation of proceedings against a senior manager of the respondent company and his associates for interfering with their services. The present writ petition was filed to challenge the dismissal of their application.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the provisions of sections 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot be made applicable to a proceeding pending under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Section 33 contemplates pendency of any conciliation proceeding before an Arbitrator or "a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of any industrial dispute." The authorities mentioned in section 33 are all authorities under the said Act of 1947. The said section 33 does not contemplate any proceeding pending under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The authorities contemplated under section 33A of the said Act of 1947 are also authorities under the said Act, 1947 and the said section 33A contemplates a situation where an employer contravenes the provisions of section 33. If section 33 is not attracted in the case then section 33A cannot be applied.
Issues: Whether the provisions of sections 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, can be made applicable to a proceeding pending under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the provisions of sections 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, cannot be made applicable to a proceeding pending under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The authorities mentioned in section 33 are all authorities under the said Act of 1947. The said section 33 does not contemplate any proceeding pending under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The authorities contemplated under section 33A of the said Act of 1947 are also authorities under the said Act, 1947 and the said section 33A contemplates a situation where an employer contravenes the provisions of section 33. If section 33 is not attracted in the case then section 33A cannot be applied.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners' application under section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was misconceived and not maintainable.
"i grant liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Government within a period of one month from today with a request to refer their case to the committee for the purpose of investigation whether the employment given to the petitioners is liable to the prohibited in terms of the provisions contained in section 10 of the said Act. In the event the petitioners so approach the appropriate Government, the appropriate Government shall within one month's time decide whether to refer the matter to the committee or not to refer the same. Until two months from today and until the report is submitted by the committee to the appropriate Government, in the event the appropriate Government decides to refer the matter to the appropriate committee, the respondent employer shall not engage any one to do the jobs which are being rendered by the petitioners in their replacement except by their permanent employees. "
( 2 ) IT appears from Annexure P-3 [a letter dated 26. 09. 2001 addressed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour to the Regional Labour commissioner (C), Calcutta] to the writ petition that a representation dated 15. 05. 2000 was made by the petitioners wherein the petitioners had requested for regularisation of their services in the respondent No. 1 company and the petitioner took the stand that they have completed 240 days of working in perennial nature of job. It appears from the said Annexure P-3 that in the petitioners representation no indication was given regarding the name cf job performed by the petitioners and no request was made for abolition of contract labour system in the job in which they were working and the appropriate Government under the said Act of 1970 has no powers to direct absorption of the contract labour in the establishment of the principal Employer and that it was for the respondent No. 1 to consider their case for
