IMPORTANT POINTS
The licence granted under Section 12 must be in Form VI. The licence terms, among other things, mandate that the persons employed as contract labour in the establishment shall not, on any day, exceed the maximum number mentioned in the license; the wages the contractor pays to the employees shall not be less than those prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. And if the contract employee does similar work as does the establishment's "directly employed" person, the wage rates, holidays, hours of work, and other service conditions of the contract workers must be the same.

JUDGMENT :

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

Introduction:

1. The petitioner-Trade Union champions the cause of contract employees in an industrial establishment. When one of the trade unions wanted recognition, the Deputy Labour Commissioner notified elections and released the voters' list, too. The contract employees were found excluded. So the petitioner-Trade Union questions the exclusion.

Should the contract employees be treated on a par with the regular employees, so they can vote to confer recognition on a trade union?

Facts:

2. Tata Finlay Employee's Association ("Tata Finlay Union"), the petitioner, is a trade union. It claims to represent the workers employed in the second respondent's industrial establishment; to be more precise, in its 'Instant Tea Division', at Munnar. Among the ranks of its members are 27 contract labourers.

3. The respondents 3 to 5 are the other trade unions. As the record reflects, Tata Finlay Union and the third and fourth respondent unions have already had the recognition from the employer. Recently the fifth respondent, Instant Tea Employees Sangh, applied for recognition under the Kerala Recognition of Trade Unions Act 2010 ("the Act"). So the Deputy Labour Commissioner, the first respondent, issued the Ext. P1 notification proposing to hold the election. And he prepared a voters list, too.

4. When the 27 contract workers did not find their names in the voters' list, the Tata Finlay Union submitted the Ext. P2 objection. That apart, the individual workers also filed their objections, the Ext. P3 being one such objection. Eventually, the first respondent, after considering the objections, including those of the employer, passed the Ext. P7 order. He rejected the contract employees' claim to vote in the election to be held. Then, assailing the Ext. P7, Tata Finlay Union has filed this writ petition.

5. I may as well note about a development on the status of the 27 contract employees. In fact, five of them became regular employees. But their claim too was rejected because they had less than 120 days service in a calendar year, as regular employees.

Submissions:

Petitioners':

6. Sri Ashok B. Shenoy, the learned counsel for the Tata Finlay Union, has taken me through the entire provisions of the Act, besides other cognate enactments. He asserts that even the contract employees are part of the establishment and they cannot be denied the right to vote, lest it should negate their bargaining power.

7. To begin with, Sri Shenoy has contended that the Act, apparently, is industry oriented rather than employer-oriented. According to him, the Act does not discriminate among the different classes of employees or workers. In short, employees of all shades--be it regular, casual, temporary, or contractual--ought to be treated on a par. For employees' exercising their right to vote is a part of their bargaining power in the industrial establishment. Referring to a few provisions of the Act, including the definitional clauses under Section 2, Sri Shenoy would contend that 'workmen' is defined by incorporation from the Industrial Disputes Act. To fix the bounds or the legal limits of who could be termed an employee under the Industrial Disputes Act, Sri Shenoy has relied on Devinder Singh v. Municipal Council, Sanaur, AIR 2011 SC 2532 : (2011) 6 SCC 584 : LNIND 2011 SC 406 and Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Ram Ujagar, AIR 1964 SC 355 : LNIND 1963 SC 93 : 1963-II-LLJ-447.

8. First 27, now 25, of the Tata Finlay Union are contractual labourers, accepts Sri Shenoy. But he refers to Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1971 read with the Rules under that Act. According to him, that Act casts a specific statutory obligation on the second respondent employer to take care of those workers' welfare, too. Then, he has drawn my attention to the Rules. Besides Kerala Recognition of Trade Unions Rules, he has referred to Rules 21 and 23, besides Forms IV, V and VI, of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules.

9. Sri S