Back
2015 Supreme(Ker) 1587
High Court of Kerala
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Anil K. Narendran, JJ.
Hindustan Newsprint Ltd - Appellant
Versus
Hnl Casual And Contract Workers Centre & Ors - Respondent
W.A. No. 1336 of 2011
Decided On : 21-12-2015
Headnote:
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Section 12 - Contract Labour - Licensing of contractors - Essentials - Terms and conditions - Whether clandestine arrangement was being made by the principal employer, showing the name of some stranger as the licencee or if any engagement of workers was being made through unlicensed contractor, it could be said that it is a 'sham contract' or a 'camouflage' - Challenged - Held, If some clandestine arrangement was being made by the principal employer, showing the name of some stranger as the licencee (as a name lender) or if any engagement of workers was being made through unlicensed contractor, it could be said that it is a 'sham contract' or a 'camouflage'. The instance of engaging workers through contractors in the appellant's establishment for the past several years is an established fact and the workers represented by the writ petitioner's Union, who were engaged by the 4th respondent/contractor, were admittedly working for the past several years. The 4th respondent was having licence under Section 12 of the CLRA Act from 2005 and the same was being renewed from time to time, as evident from R4(4) and R4(5). As it stands so, such engagement by the contractor for performing work in the establishment of the appellant Company deploying the workers represented by writ petitioner's Union could never be termed as a clandestine one; nor could the contract be called as a sham one or camouflage. Non-renewal of the licence for a short span cannot lead to any inference that the nature of engagement was a bogus or fictitious one; more so, when the original licence itself was renewed by the competent authority subsequently - The factual position stands answered against the writ petitioner Union - Petition dismissed
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.
1. Would the 'non-renewal' of licence issued to a contractor under the relevant provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)Act,1970 ['CLRA Act' in short], that too for a short period, grant any automatic/vested right to the workers engaged by the contractor to raise a claim for being treated as employees of the principal employer? Will it amount to a 'dispute' as envisaged under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, if any such claim is raised by the workers/Unions and is it obligatory for the Conciliation Officer to have the issue conciliated and on failure, to send a referral report to the Government for causing adjudication? These are the legal issues involved in this appeal.
2. The challenge is mainly against the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the claim of the Union /writ petitioner has been accepted, setting aside the impugned order and directing the conciliation authority to have the matter conciliated, despite the fact that the claim for regularisation raised by the Unions earlier, was adjudicated by the Labour Court, Ernakulam in I.D.No. 154/1995 holding it against the workers/Unions.
3. The appellant Company is a wholly owned Government undertaking, engaged in the manufacture of newsprint, having a factory at Newsprint Nagar at Velloor in Kottayam district. So as to cater to the organizational requirements of the appellant, apart from the permanent workers, the Company also entrusts works to various contractors, who engage their own workmen. The 4th respondent herein is one of such contractors. The first respondent Union is stated as representing about 35' casual workers; among the total of more than 200 similar workers engaged by the 4th respondent/contractor in connection with the works in the appellant's establishment. It is contended that the workers were being engaged as above, right from 1982-83, although the Union got registered only in the year 2006.
4. By the year 2008, the first respondent Union came across an amendment of the earlier notification issued by the Central Government, authorising the authorities of the State Government, to function as the Conciliation Officer in respect of establishments like the appellant herein. Subsequently, the said notification was amended by the Central Government as per the notification dated 05.05.2008, whereby the third respondent herein came to be the Conciliation Officer for the Central Government Companies like the appellant. The first respondent Union gathered information/data as to the licence particulars of the 4th respondent and as per Ext.P2 dated 04.06.2008 obtained under the RTI Act, it was let known that the 4th respondent was not included in the list of 'licensed contractors' engaged by the appellant Company. It was in the said circumstance, that Ext.P3 complaint was preferred before the third respondent/Conciliation Officer to conciliate the dispute for reguterisation of contract workers engaged by the appellant through the unlicensed contractor/4th respondent. On receipt of Ext.P3, the matter was considered by the third respondent, who issued Ext.P4 reply pointing out that it was not a subject matter to be dealt with as an industrial dispute under section 2
5. The 3rd and 4th respondents in the writ petition (appellant and third respondent herein) filed separate counter affidavits, which are complementary to each other. It was contended by the appellant that there was absolutely no merit or bonafides for the claim mooted by the Union and that the decision rendered by the Apex Court sought to be relied on by the Union in Gujarat Electricity Board, Ukai v. Hind Mazdoor Sabhaf, AIR 1995 SC 1893 and in Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh and others, AIR 1999 SC 1160 were having no application at all. It was asserted that the issue was squarely covered by the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in Steei Authority of India Limited v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001
