IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the test to determine direct employment of employees by the principal employer, focusing on the payment of salary and the control and supervision of work.

JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J

1) In this writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is made to the order dated 27.07.2006 passed by the State Industrial Court of Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Civil Appeal No. 183/ MPIR Act/2003 (Annexure P-1) and Order dated 29.07.2003 passed by the Labour Court Bilaspur in Case No.98/MPIR Act/99 by which the learned Labour Court has directed the petitioner to regularize the service of the contractor’s employees.

2) Respondent no.3 Audhyogik Kshetra Mazdoor Sangh which was affiliated to Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh through its Vice President filed an application u/s 31(3) of MPIR Act before the Labour Court, Bilaspur, claiming regularization of the employees working with the Petitioners’ Company Bharat Earth Movers Ltd (for short “BEML”). The names of beneficiaries were listed in Schedule-A of the petition under Section 31. The Labour Court passed the order in favour of respondent no.3 Audhyogik Kshetra Mazdoor Sangh which was subject of challenge before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court too affirmed the order of Labour Court (Annexure P-1). Hence, this petition by the petitioner/ Company who is employer.

3) A perusal of the record would show that Audhyogik Kshetra Mazdoor Sangh affiliated by Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh having registration No.4959 through its Vice President filed a petition claiming to be representative of employees Union. The details of the employees were shown in Annexure-A of the petition. According to respondent no.3, the workers were working in the respondent Unit of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd (for short “BEML”) and discharged their duties continuously for more than six months, as such, they were regularized as per the provisions of M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 and the Rules framed thereunder called as M.P. Industrial Employment (S.O) Rules 1963 (for short “Rules of 1963). The Representative-Union claimed for regularization of services as per Rule 2(i) & 2(vi) of the Rules of 1963. The claim of the workers Union before the Labour Court was that they were shown to be the employees of one Vidya Sagar Pandey, labour supplier, and were contract employees. However, the nature of job was continuous in nature. They stated that they worked on the post for more than six months and therefore acquired the status of permanent employee and accordingly they be regularized.

4) The petitioner/employer Company resisted the claim on the ground that the union-workers were the employees of contract labour and the Company does not have any control over the said employees and the entire payment and other emoluments are being paid through labour Contractor who was named as Vidya Sagar Pandey as a labour supplier. It was further stated that according to the bills raised by the labour supplier, the petitioners’ Company used to pay the salary and other emoluments meaning thereby they did not have any direct supervision and control over the workers supplied by the contractor.

5) On the basis of pleadings, the parties adduced their evidence and placed the documents. On behalf of the respondent Union, as many as 19 witnesses were examined and on behalf of the petitioner-employer, 3 witnesses were examined. The Labour Court and the Industrial Court both have concurrently held that the nature of work was perennial or continuous in nature and employees had worked for more than six months in clear vacancy and accordingly the order of regularization was passed which is under challenge before this Court.

6) Learned counsel for the petitioner Company would submit that the burden to prove that the workers were in direct rolls of the Company has not been discharged by the workers Union, instead, certain documents which were filed during trial before the Industrial Court. Though the documents filed by the Union was exhibited but in respect of documents filed by the employer was denied without any sufficient reasons. Therefore, the wrong finding which is not base