Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited - Petitioner
Versus
Their Workmen represented by Joint Area Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Dhanbad & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(L) Nos. 5444, 5461 of 2001
Decided On : 18-01-2024
[CONTRACT LABOUR] - [REGULARISATION OF CONTRACT WORKERS] - [Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, Section 10; Industrial Disputes Act, 1947] - [The court discussed the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, particularly Section 10, which prohibits the engagement of contract labour in certain circumstances. The court interpreted the notifications issued under this Act, including the relaxation of prohibitions, and concluded that the tribunal's award for regularisation was not sustainable due to the lack of a definitive employer-employee relationship and the applicability of the 1989 notification allowing contract labour under specific conditions. This legal framework significantly influenced the court's decision to quash the tribunal's award.]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two writ petitions challenging a common award by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal regarding the regularisation of contract workers engaged in coal loading at Jealgora Colliery. The workers claimed they were entitled to regularisation due to the nature of their work, which they argued was permanent and had been ongoing for over five years. The management contended that no employer-employee relationship existed and that the work was performed by contractors under specific conditions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the tribunal had erred in its conclusions, particularly by ignoring the implications of the 1989 notification that allowed for the engagement of contract labour under certain conditions. The court also noted that the tribunal had drawn adverse inferences against the management without sufficient evidence and that the award had not become final due to ongoing legal challenges.
Issues: 1. Whether the workers were engaged in a permanent nature of work that warranted regularisation. 2. Whether the tribunal's award for regularisation was legally justified given the existing notifications and the relationship between the workers and the management.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the tribunal's reliance on the earlier Supreme Court judgment was misplaced due to its subsequent overruling. It emphasized that the award could not stand as it had not been given effect to and was challenged in court. The court also highlighted the importance of the 1989 notification that relaxed the prohibition on contract labour, which was critical in determining the legality of the tribunal's decision.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the tribunal's award dated 14.03.2001, allowing the writ petitions and concluding that the demand for regularisation of the contract workers was not sustainable in law.
JUDGMENT :
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents in spite of repeated calls.
3. Both these writ petitions are disposed of by this common judgment because both these writ petitions have been filed with a prayer to set aside the common award dated 14.03.2001 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference No.54 of 1994 in respect of which W.P. (L) No.5444 of 2001 has been filed and Reference No.117 of 1994 in respect of which W.P. (L) No.5461 of 2001 has been filed.
4. The Schedule in Reference No.54 of 1994 and the Schedule in Reference No.117 of 1994 are as under:-
“Whether the claim of Shri Bihari Prasad and 54 others (as listed in the Annexure) engaged as contract Labour at Jealgora Colliery of M/s. BCCL and the management of M/s. IISCO. for regularisation of their services is justified? If so, from what date?”
THE SCHEDULE IN REFERENCE NO.117 OF 1994
“Whether the demand of the union for regularization of the contract workmen S/Shri Kuber Nath Ram and 44 others (as per attached annexure) through contractors M/s. R.B. Traders and Shri R.P. Agarwal, contractors of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Limited is justified? If not to what relief should be granted?”
5. The dispute in Reference No.54 of 1994 relates to the question of regularisation of Shri Bihari Prasad and 54 others who are engaged as contract labour in Jealgora Colliery of M/s. BCCL and the management of M/s. IISCO. The dispute in Reference No.117 of 1994 relates to the question of regularisation of Shri Kubernath Ram and 44 others who were working through contractor M/s. R.B. Traders and Shri R.P. Agrawal Contractors of M/s. BCCL. In both reference cases there are three common persons namely Bholaram at serial No.53, Kubernath Ram at serial No.54 and Bhim Manjhi at serial No.55 in Reference No.54 of 1994 have their name in serial Nos.13, 1, 40 respectively in Reference No.117 of 1994. It is the case of the workers who are sponsored by their union that they were engaged to perform the duty for truck loading of coal at the depot of Jealgora colliery in Lodna area of M/s. BCCL from where coal is being transported through trucks to Lodna Coke Plant in Bhowra Area in M/s. BCCL and washery of Chasnalla colliery of M/s. IISCO. It was contended that the workmen were loading coal in the trucks which is permanent and perennial nature of work within the premises of Jealgora Colliery of M/s. BCCL continuously for more than 5 years and their attendance in each calendar year is more than 240 days. The appropriate Government i.e. the Central Government by notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regularisation & Abolition) Act, 1970 has prohibited engagement of contract labour for coal loading and unloading besides four other jobs by Notification dated 01.02.1975. It is also contended by the workmen that despite the appropriate government having prohibited the engagement of contractor or contract labour; yet the management of M/s. BCCL and IISCO is getting the work of loading of coal done in trucks by the concerned persons but their wages is being paid through contractor, which is much less than the rate prescribed by NCWA and they claim that they are the workmen of M/s. BCCL and they are entitled for regularisation.
6. The case of the management of BCCL which is the writ petitioner herein is that no relationship of employer and employee exists between the concerned persons and the management of BCCL as employer and workmen. It was contended by the management of BCCL that M/s. IISCO has a steel plant at Burnpur and in order to meet the requirement of coal for its steel plant at Burnpur, the IISCO has got its own three captive mines at Chasnalla, Jitpur and Ramnagar but IISCO requires some selected ROM coal from Jealgora colliery coal seam for the purpose of blending with the washery grade coal and to utilize the same for the manufact
The judgment establishes that the regularisation of contract workers is contingent upon the existence of a clear employer-employee relationship and compliance with relevant legal provisions, includin....
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....
The absence of proper contractor registration leads to a presumption of employer-employee relationship, entitling workmen to regularization in permanent jobs.
The court established that the automatic absorption of contract labour into permanent employment is not mandated by law, and the existence of a contractor-employee relationship precludes direct claim....
Section 10 of CLRA reads as prohibition of employment of contract labour.
Point of Law : Neither the recommendations of that Committee nor the notification ultimately prohibiting the engagement of contract labourers by CPWD, has been ever questioned or assailed by the resp....
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
