IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
T.S SIVAGNANAM, BIVAS PATTANAYAK, JJ.
North Bengal State Transport Corporation & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sanjoy kundu & ors. – Respondent
FMA 2147 of 2018
Decided on : 25-08-2022
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2A(2), 15 - Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 - Rule 10B - Challenging judgment and order - North Bengal State Transport Corporation - West Bengal for reinstatement and absorption of labours - Writ petition - Arbitrary or contrary to law - Termination amounts to retrenchment - Held, On consideration of evidence of PW1, exhibited documents submitted on behalf of applicants, learned tribunal passed ex parte order - Further inspite of due service of summons appellant-NBSTC did not contest case as is appearing in order of learned Tribunal - There is no perversity or infirmity or irregularity in ex parte order passed by learned tribunal - Accordingly, in absence of any unreasonableness or arbitrariness of tribunal to conclude proceeding ex parte, it cannot be said to bad in law and hence argument advanced in this regard falls short of merit - Disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Bivas Pattanayak, J.
1. Both the appeals have been preferred by North Bengal State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as NBSTC) challenging the common judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge of this Court allowing WP no. 4177(W) of 2016 filed by respondents (hereinafter referred to as the applicants) and dismissing WP no. 33666(W) of 2014 filed by appellant-NBSTC.
2. The precise fact involved in the present appeals is that the respondents-applicants filed an application under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the 7th Industrial Tribunal, Government of West Bengal for reinstatement and absorption of labours appointed through contractors with the following contentions:
(ii) The NBSTC, Cooch-Behar appointed respondent namely M/s Delta Security Services, a contractor on 13.11.2006 and the contract was extended from 01.10.2009 to 30.09.2011 and again till 01.10.2011 to 30.09.2012.
(iii)The applicants were working under the said contractor namely M/s Delta Security Services since 13.11.2006 and were engaged in the said organization for more than 20 years performing similar types of jobs as is done ordinarily through regular workman such as operating pumps, electrical jobs, ticket selling, duties on reserve buses, etc. The applicants were issued Identity cards by the NBSTC management. However, in spite of doing jobs ordinarily done by regular and permanent workmen they did not get any service benefit.
(iv) It was requested on behalf of Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Finance Department vide Memorandum No.11794-F(P) dated 22.12.2010 and Memorandum No. 9008-F(P) dated 16.09.2011 to enquire into the matter and issue necessary direction to the appropriate authority in order to improve the service conditions of those workmen.
(v) The applicants contended that they had not been paid their salary since December, 2011.
(vi) On 12.01.2011, under the chairmanship of Managing Director Shri D.B. Lepcha, a meeting was convened for enhancement of remuneration and service conditions of the employees under the contractors. However, the applicants came to know through their contractor that their services were terminated with effect from 16.02.2012, which was arbitrary action on the part of the Management of NBSTC.
(vii) Further respondent-M/s Delta Security Services which engaged the applicants for performing their job in different sections of NBSTC did not have valid license and as such in the absence of valid license the applicants, who were engaged in the jobs which were done by regular workmen, should be treated as permanent employees of NBSTC.
On such basis the applicants prayed for their reinstatement in service in terms of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and treat the applicants as employees of NBSTC.
3. The case being no. 49/2A (2) of 2012 before the learned Industrial Tribunal proceeded ex-parte as the opposite parties failed to appear and upon consideration of materials placed before it the learned Industrial Tribunal on 30.05.2014 passed the following order on the grounds that the contract between the NBSTC and the agency was not genuine.
The O.Ps are directed to treat the contract labours i.e the applicants as employees of the principal employer North Bengal State Transport Corporation without any further delay.
This is my award.”
4. The appellants herein namely NBSTC filed a writ petition challenging the aforesaid order passed by the 7th Industrial Tribunal being WP No. 33666(W) of 2014 with a prayer for setting aside the
Burn and Co., Calcutta versus Their Employees
Brijbhushan Yadav & Ors. versus Union of India & Anr.
Dena Nath versus National Fertilizers
India General Navigation and Railway Co Ltd. Calcutta versus Their Workmen
International Airport Authority of India vs. International Air Cargo Workers’ Union & Anr.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai versus K.V Shramik Sangh and others
Pandurang Sitaram Jadhav and others versus State of Maharashtra
Parry and Co. Ltd, Dare House, Madras versus Commercial Employees Association, Madras and Another
State of Haryana versus The Haryana Cooperative Transport and Others
Secretary H.S.E.B versus Suresh and others
Steel Authority of India Ltd and Others versus National Union Waterfront Workers and others
A judgment contrary to the evidence or without evidence is perverse. Concession of counsel on such facts and law does not bind the party.Master-servant relationship.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for contract labourers to comply with the terms and conditions stipulated for regularisation and permanent absorption, including....
Section 10 of CLRA reads as prohibition of employment of contract labour.
The Labour Court's determination that a sham contract exists may classify workers as employees of the principal employer, thereby validating their claims for service conditions and protections under ....
The court established that without clear evidence of direct employment, claims of an employer-employee relationship under contract labour provisions cannot succeed.
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....
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.