High Court Of Delhi
MODERN FOOD INDUSTRIES EMPLOYIS UNION - Appellant
Versus
MODERN FOOD INDUSTRIES - Respondent
Civil 5066 of 1993
Decided On : 05/01/1999
REGULARISATION OF CASUAL LABOURERS - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK - [WORKMEN - REGULARISATION OF SERVICES - EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 25-B - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - ARTICLES 14, 16, 226 - FACTUAL ASPECTS - QUESTION OF FACT - ADJUDICATION BY LABOUR COURT OR INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION NOT MAINTAINABLE - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY AVAILABLE UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-Union prayed for regularisation of the services of casual workmen and for payment of equal pay for equal work. The first respondent-Company denied that the casual workmen were performing jobs of permanent nature and stated that they were employed on daily wage basis to work in place of absentee employees. The first respondent-Company also denied the disparity in the wages paid to the workers.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the questions raised by the petitioner-Union could be decided only on taking evidence and it can be decided only by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal. This Court sitting in Article 226 cannot adjudicate on questions of fact. The Court further held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the casual workmen were performing jobs of permanent nature? 2. Whether the first respondent-Company was justified in paying different wages to the casual workmen and the regular workmen? 3. Whether the petitioner-Union can directly approach the High Court for the determination of industrial disputes?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The question of whether the casual workmen were performing jobs of permanent nature is a question of fact which can be decided only by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal after taking evidence. 2. The question of whether the first respondent-Company was justified in paying different wages to the casual workmen and the regular workmen is also a question of fact which can be decided only by the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal after taking evidence. 3. The petitioner-Union has an alternative remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THE petitioner-Union has prayed for the following reliefs:
(I) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to regularise the services of the casual workmen mentioned above with retrospective effect i. e. from the date they got their first appointment. (ii) Direct respondents to follow the directive of equal pay for equal work and to pay the casual workmen accordingly.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is praying for regularisation of the servicc of the casual labourers, who according to the petitioner-Union, have been working with the first respondent since 1985 as operators, loaders and peons. Accordingto the petitioner-Union the nature. of the work done by the workers is of permanent nature. The petitioner-Union has given a list of workmen who according to petitioner-Union are entitled to regularisation and to payment as permanent workmen on the basis of equal pay for equal work. It is stated in paragraph 7 (iv) of the writ petition as under:
"it is humble submission of the petitioner that as against a strength of 250 permanent employees, 200casual labourers have been engaged by the respondent No. 2 in different capacities such as operator, loader and peon for the last many years. The nature of job that they are perform ing is of permanent nature. Still the management does not regularise them. It keep on terminating the services of the casual workmen and again reappointing them so that they do not put in regular service and claim even the minimal retrenchment benefit. Needless to say, the same is being done by an organ of State to exploit cheap labour, a practice reminiscent of primitive capitalism. It is humble submission that the same is not only legally untenable underindustrial Disputes Act, it is also opposed to human dignity, constitutional propriety and civilized norms of any society that believes in Socialist values. More so, when the exploiter is not an individual, but the State itself. "
( 3 ) IT is further stated that there is great disparity between the salary paid to the casual workers and the permanent workmen. According to the petitioner-Union the first respondent has not evolved a scheme of absorption as laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases.
( 4 ) ON 4. 4. 1994 the first respondent filed its reply. It is stated in paragraph 1 in parawise reply as under:
"in reply to the contents of paragraph I of the writ petition, it is denied that the daily rated casual workmen, whose names have been set out in paragraph 7 (v) of the writ petition, are performing jobs of permanent nature. It is submitted that the respondent-company is engaged in the manufacture and supply of bread which is an essential commodity and because any disruption in the production of the said product could have wider repercussions. People, it is submilted, are appointed on daily wage basis to work in the place of workmen discharging various duties in the unit who absent themselves from time-to-time. People are employed on daily wage basis to work in place of these absentee employees. These casual workers working in the respondent-Company are considered for regular appointment as and when any vacancy arises. There is a selection procedure provided to fill up the regular post in the respondent-Company and as and when the vacancy arises, in accordance With the said procedure the employees are called for interview and after taking into account their past performance and their date of seniority, they are considered for regular appointment. It is incorrect that holidays and national holidays are denied to casual workmen. Holidays, it is submitted, are given to them in accordance with the provisions of law including the factories Act. "
( 5 ) THE respondent has explained its position by stating at page 47 of the reply affidavit as under :
"since the nature of work of the respondent-Company is to manufacture and supply the essential commodity, any disruption or production would affect the
REFERRED TO : H.D. Singh v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors.
Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P and T Department v. Union of India
Delhi Municipal Karamchari Ekta Union (Regd.) v. P.L. Singh and Others
U.P. Income tax Department Contingent Paid Staff Welfare Association v. Union of India and Others
Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mincral Dcvelopment Corporation
State of Haryana and Others, etc. v. Piara Singh and Others etc.
Chief Conservator of Forests and Anr. v. Jagamath Maniti Kondhare and Anr.
Air India Statutory Corporation etc. v. United Labour Union and Others etc.
Jaswant Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Satyanarayan Sharma and Ors. v. National Mineral Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.
Union of India and Ors. v. Tejram Parashrainji Bombhate and Ors.
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Ors.
Union of India and Ors. v. Dinesh Kumar Saxena and Ors.
Rajasthan State Road Transpt Corporation and Anr. v. Krishna kant and Ors.
State of H.P. v. Ashwani Kumar and Ors.
State of U.P. and Ors. v. U.P. Madhyamic Shiksha Parishad Shrarnik Sangh and Anr.
Dinesh Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Tarlok Chand and Ors. v. National Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.
AI
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.