Back
2005 Supreme(Mad) 533
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. BALASUBRAMANIAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. SARDAR ZACKRIA HUSSAIN
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Another - Appellant
Versus
Central Organisation of Tamil Nadu Electricity Employees (CITU) - Respondents
Writ Appeal No.3251 of 2004 and W.A.M.P.No.6137 of 2004 and Writ Petition No.25618 of 2004 and W.P.M.P.No.31127 of 2004
Decided On : 24 March 2005
The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition and directing payment of wages without considering the disputed questions of fact that required evidence to be adduced.
Headnote:
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) appealed the High Court's order directing them to pay daily wages to contract laborers employed in distribution, generation, and other circles as per the Public Works Department (PWD) Schedule of rates applicable to Mazdoor category-II with effect from 1 July 1998. The dispute arose from a settlement reached between TNEB and the Central Organization of Tamil Nadu Electricity Employees (CITU) under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which provided for payment of wages according to PWD Schedule of rates to contract laborers employed on daily wages in distribution, generation, and other circles. TNEB resisted the claim, arguing that the issue should be resolved through an industrial dispute under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and that the High Court could not adjudicate the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court rejected TNEB's arguments and directed payment of wages from October 2002, the date of filing of the writ petition, until March 2004. The Supreme Court allowed TNEB's appeal, holding that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition and directing payment of wages without considering the disputed questions of fact that required evidence to be adduced. The Court held that the issue of whether the contract laborers were entitled to wages as per the PWD Schedule of rates could only be determined through an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court also held that the High Court could not adjudicate the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution because the dispute involved questions of fact that required evidence to be adduced.
Fact of the Case:
The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB) appealed the High Court's order directing them to pay daily wages to contract laborers employed in distribution, generation, and other circles as per the Public Works Department (PWD) Schedule of rates applicable to Mazdoor category-II with effect from 1 July 1998. The dispute arose from a settlement reached between TNEB and the Central Organization of Tamil Nadu Electricity Employees (CITU) under Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which provided for payment of wages according to PWD Schedule of rates to contract laborers employed on daily wages in distribution, generation, and other circles. TNEB resisted the claim, arguing that the issue should be resolved through an industrial dispute under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and that the High Court could not adjudicate the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court rejected TNEB's arguments and directed payment of wages from October 2002, the date of filing of the writ petition, until March 2004.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court allowed TNEB's appeal, holding that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition and directing payment of wages without considering the disputed questions of fact that required evidence to be adduced. The Court held that the issue of whether the contract laborers were entitled to wages as per the PWD Schedule of rates could only be determined through an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court also held that the High Court could not adjudicate the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution because the dispute involved questions of fact that required evidence to be adduced.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition and directing payment of wages without considering the disputed questions of fact that required evidence to be adduced? 2. Whether the issue of whether the contract laborers were entitled to wages as per the PWD Schedule of rates could only be determined through an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act? 3. Whether the High Court could adjudicate the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution because the dispute involved questions of fact that required evidence to be adduced?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition and directing payment of wages without considering the disputed questions of fact that required evidence to be adduced. 2. The issue of whether the contract laborers were entitled to wages as per the PWD Schedule of rates could only be determined through an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act. 3. The High Court could not adjudicate the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution because the dispute involved questions of fact that required evidence to be adduced.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed TNEB's appeal and set aside the High Court's order directing payment of wages to contract laborers. The Court held that the issue of whether the contract laborers were entitled to wages as per the PWD Schedule of rates could only be determined through an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Common Judgment: (S. Sardar Zackria Hussain, J.)
W.A.No.3251 of 2004:- This appeal is filed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.38046 of 2002 dated 31.3.2004. The General Secretary of the Central Organisation of Tamil Nadu Electricity Employees (CITU) filed the Writ Petition No.38046 of 2002 and the issue involved being the payment of wages including arrears to the contract labourers employed on daily wages in the distribution, generation and other circles as payable according to PWD Schedule of rates applicable to Mazdoor category-II with effect from 1.7.1998 as directed in the proceedings of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board dated 27.7.1998.
2. W.P.No.25618 of 2004:- The issue involved in this Writ Petition filed by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Workers Progressive Union, represented by its General Secretary, is similar to one as claimed in the Writ Petition No.38046 of 2002, subject matter of the Writ Appeal in W.A.No.3251 of 2004 and is taken up along with the Writ Appeal as ordered by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
3. W.A.No.3251 of 2004:- In the Writ Petition No.38046 of 2002, subject matter of the Writ Appeal, it is stated that for the purpose of exploiting the cheap labour on contract basis, number of workmen were employed by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") in the generation, distribution, general construction, project and other areas for performing variety of services and despite the steps taken by the respondent union for abolition of contract labour and despite the recommendation of the committee concerned no orders were issued for abolition of contract labour in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act by the Government of Tamil Nadu, which made the respondent union to file W.P.No.555 of 1990 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and after filing of the Writ Petition, G.O.Ms.No.950 (Labour and Employment Department) dated 8.9.1990 was issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu abolishing the engagement of contract labour in the following 19 processes in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board:-
1) Fuse of call
2) Maintenance of buildings, quarters etc., (except annual maintenance)
3) Painting (except painting of intermittent nature)
4) Transformer maintenance
5) Material stock-yard in Mettur workshop (except handling of bulk supply of materials from suppliers and stores)
6) Instrumentation
7) Handling of materials in stores
8) Turbine maintenance
9) Boiler maintenance
10) Clerical work including typing
11) Cooling water-system
12) Water Treatment plant
13) Water supplies
14) Laboratory
15) Changing of bulbs
16) Labour supply in fire services
17) Assessment, preparation of bill and card billing
18) Maintenance of street lights and
19) Sick Transformers repairing work (excluding the work entrusted to outside agency)
and the Hon'ble Supreme Court further directed to consider the abolition of contract labour in other processes also. But, however, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board continued engaging the contract labour and the matter was taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a Commission presided over by Justice V.Khalid was appointed and as per the report of the Justice V.Khalid recommending absorption of contract labour, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to absorb all the contract workmen on a time bound basis. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board continued to engage workmen on contract basis in distribution, general construction, project and other circles of the Board and the workmen so employed have been continuously working for several years and for more than 480 days in 24 calendar months and some for over 5 years. The work done by the workmen is of permanent nature relating to following areas:-
a) Fuse off call
b) Maintenance of building/sub station
c) Transformer maintenance
d) Handling of Materials – drawal from stores and supply to stores
e) Turbine and boiler
