Back
High Court Of Delhi
MUKUL MUDGAL, S. MURLIDHER RAO
AIR INDIA LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
JAGESH DUTT SHARMA - Respondents
CMS 6181 Of 2006
Decided On : 09/11/2006
Industrial Disputes Act - Contract Labour - Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Section 10), Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (Section 10(1)) - The court discussed the validity of a notification prohibiting the employment of contract labour, the interpretation of the law regarding automatic absorption of contract labour, and the power of the government to decline making a reference of a dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute regarding the engagement of contract labour by Air India and the refusal by the Ministry of Labour to make a reference of the dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal. The respondents claimed that the contract between Air India and the contractor was void ab initio and illegal, and sought regularisation of their services.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was enough material on record to indicate the existence of an industrial dispute that required reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court also held that the government was in error in declining to make a reference and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the reference expeditiously.
Issues: The issues included the nature of the engagement of the respondents as contract labour, the validity of the contract, and the government's power to decline making a reference of the dispute for adjudication to the Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the government, at the stage of considering whether to refer a dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, is not expected to examine minutely whether there are precise pleadings as in a civil suit. The court also emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of the reference by the Tribunal.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal was directed to dispose of the reference expeditiously and not later than a period of one year from the date of the judgment.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
( 1 ) THIS letters patent appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 16. 2. 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1712-1715 of 2005 filed by the respondents, against the refusal by the appropriate Government to make an order of reference under Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("id Act' ). The learned Single Judge has directed the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, Respondent No. 6 herein, to make a reference of the dispute raised by the respondent workmen for adjudication to the industrial adjudicator within a period of 12 weeks.
( 2 ) IT appears that consequent upon the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge, Respondent No. 6 passed an order dated 23. 3. 2006 making the reference of the industrial dispute to the Central Government Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi-I ("tribunal') and the case has been registered as I. D. No. 08/06. On 27. 4. 2006, the appellant filed the present appeal with the delay of 21 days.
( 3 ) THE facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may be noticed. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 10 (1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 ["clra'], the Ministry of Labour, government of India issued a Notification dated 9. 12. 1976, prohibiting the employment of contract labour with effect from 1. 3. 1977 for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching all buildings owned or occupied by establishments in respect of which the appropriate government was the Central Government. It is not in dispute that this notification applied to the appellant Air India as well.
( 4 ) THE validity of the above notification was upheld by the Hon'ble supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union (1997) 9 scc 377. Consequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the directions issued by the High Court directing Air India to absorb the workmen and"regularise their services with effect from the respective dates of the judgments of the High Court with all consequential benefits".
( 5 ) FOLLOWING this, the respondents, claiming to have been engaged as contract labour in the establishments of the appellant, filed Writ Petition (C)No. 2052 of 1997 and Writ Petition (C) No. 6221 of 1998 in this Court seeking directions to the appellant herein to reinstate them and regularise their services. The appellant herein, which was the Respondent in the said writ petitions, filed its reply.
( 6 ) WHILE the said writ petitions were pending, the decision in Air India statutory Corporation (supra) was prospectively overruled by a Constitution bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National union Waterfront Workers (2001) 7 SCC 1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court now held [scc @ p. 62 para 125 (3)]:" (3) Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment concerned. "as regards the remedy available to the contract labour, the following directions were issued [scc @ p. 63 para 125 (5) and (6)]:" (5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10 (1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
