IMPORTANT POINT
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 claims against the principal employer for regularization.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. Both these Writ Petitions have arisen out of the common award dated 02.12.2015 passed in Ref. Case No. 70 of 2000 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad whereby and where under, the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad has answered the dispute referred to it in affirmative in part in respect of the workman- Bansidhar Mahato only.

3. The Management has filed W.P. (L) No. 6608 of 2017 against the portion of the order by which the reference has been answered in affirmative in respect of Bansidhar Mahto while the writ petition W.P. (L) No. 3111 of 2016 has been filed by the rest of the workmen in respect of whom the reference has been answered in negative by the Tribunal.

4. The brief fact of the case is that the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad:

“Whether the action of the management of Kedla Washery, M/S CCL, P.O. Kedla, Dist.-Hazaribagh in not regularizing Sri Dhaneshwar Mahato, J.B. Patel, Gouri Shankar Mahto, Sarjoo Prasad, Dahan Dhal, Gour Chandra Behra, Rajendra Sharma, Naresh Prasad, Gurudayal Mahto, Pagu Manjhi, Ramesh Mahto, Bansidhar Mahto, Lako Oraon, Rajesh Mahto and K.V. Rao in permanent roll of CCL and Non-payment of wages as per National coal wages Agreement is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?”

5. The case of the workmen concerned is that the workmen have been performing the job of plant cleaning, repairing and maintenance work continuously in the permanent and prohibited nature of job since 1996 and they were rendering the services and producing goods for the benefits of the Management and as such they have worked more than 240 days in each calendar year. As the Management threatened the concerned workmen to remove from duty hence, they raised the industrial dispute.

6. The case of the Management is that no employer and employee relation exist between the Management and the concerned persons. The Management awarded the contract for construction of washery as well as installation and commissioning of the washery to give its full capacity at the stipulated rate fixed in the contract awarded on turnkey basis. The contractor engaged sub-contractors in construction job of civil nature and for installation of machineries. The Management submitted that sponsoring union neither furnished the particulars of the concerned workmen nor submitted their identity card or employment cards to substantiate the claim of them being engaged.

7. In support of its case, the workman examined two witnesses. WW1-Dhaneshwar Mahto categorically admitted that he did not have any identity card to show that he was working with the Management-CCL. WW2-Banshidhar Mahto stated in his cross-examination that he has not filed appointment letter issued by the contractor though the same is with him but subsequently he was engaged by the Management. He filed identity card issued by the contractor which also bore the signature of the official of the Management though the identity card was issued by the contractor.

8. The learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad considered that except the respondent of W.P. (L) No. 6608 of 2017 no other workers filed any identity card and WW1 stated that he does not have any identity card and held that since only one identity card has been filed in this case hence, Bansidhar Mahto is to be regularized as workman under the Management and other workmen who have been named in the schedule of the reference is not entitled to get any relief.

9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner of W.P. (L) No. 6608 of 2017 that the Tribunal committed a perversity in directing regularization of Bansidhar Mahto as workman under the impression that absorption of a contract labou