Back
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
Jatin Rajkonwar – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. B. Das, learned counsel for the six writ petitioners and Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
2. The petitioners have put to challenge the award dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Guwahati in Reference Case No. 3/2016, wherein the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the petitioners to be reinstated into service and regularized, on the ground that there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 2 & 3, i.e. ONGC.
3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were engaged directly as Contract Labourers by the ONGC in the year 1985-1986 and later on they were engaged on contract basis through a contractor, i.e. Mr. T.R. Phukan. The engagement of the petitioners on contract basis with Mr. T. R. Phukan, on a later date, was only a paper/sham engagement, which sought to camouflage the fact that the direct engagement between the petitioners and the ONGC still remained. The petitioners were thereafter disengaged by the ONGC
The court established that without clear evidence of direct employment, claims of an employer-employee relationship under contract labour provisions cannot succeed.
it is difficult to extend minimum time scale to the petitioners as they were not engaged by respondent Nos. 4 to 11 either on contract basis or outsourcing basis.
The determination of employment relationships and the validity of contracts lies within the jurisdiction of the industrial adjudicator, particularly when claims of sham contracts are raised.
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....
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 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 contro....
Burden of proof in employment disputes shifts to the employer once workmen establish their employment. In cases of termination, statutory compliance is critical.
The Industrial Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring a contract as sham without a prohibition notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act, which is necessary for such a determination.
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....
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
