Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2240
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, R. THARANI, JJ.
The Executive Engineer, Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board, Rural Water Supply Division, Theni & Others - Appellants
Versus
The Inspector of Labour, Theni & Others - Respondents
W.A.(MD) Nos. 567 & 568 of 2018 & C.M.P.(MD) Nos. 3185, 3186 & 3187 of 2018
Decided On : 05-11-2019
For the Appellants :Porkodi Karnan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:J. Ashok, Advocate.
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Articles 226 , 14 , 16 - Contract Labour Act, 1970 - Section 10 - Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments Act, 1981 - Section 3 - Learned Standing Counsel appearing for appellant/Management, elaborately referred to factual position, which led to filing of petitions before Inspector of Labour, Theni and how claims of respondents/workmen were wholly unsustainable - It is submitted that learned Writ Court erroneously concluded that there was evidence to establish that respondents/workmen had completed 480 days of continuous service in 24 calender months - It is further submitted that learned Writ Court erred in concluding that respondents/workmen are direct employees of appellant/Management, when such fact was not proved by respondents/workmen - It is further submitted that all respondents/workmen were contract labourers and they can never be termed as direct employees of appellant/Management in absence of any proof to show that wages/salary was paid to them by appellant/Management - Further, it is submitted that sofar as appellant/Management is concerned, State Government has not issued any notification prohibiting engagement of contract labourers for implementing water supply scheme and in absence of any notification, respondents/workmen cannot claim absorption as permanent employees of appellant/Management - Further, it is submitted that there are several decisions of Honourable Supreme Court, wherein, it has been held that contract labourers, who are engaged in a scheme work, cannot claim regularization of services – Held , In preceding paragraphs, we have pointed out about scope of interference by a Writ Court on findings of fact recorded by Tribunal - In this regard, it is relevant to refer to decision in case wherein Honourable Supreme Court, on going through order passed by Labour Court, as affirmed by High Court, held that findings of fact recorded by Labour Court that employees therein are not employees under Contractors, cannot be interfered in a petition - In case of Suresh Honourable Supreme Court pointed out that provisions of Contract Labour ought to be read and interpreted so that social and economic justice may be achieved and constitutional directive be given a full play - Further, interpreting provisions of said Act, Honourable Supreme Court pointed out that in event, contract labour is employed in an establishment for seasonal workings, question of abolition would not arise but in event of same being of perennial in nature, that is to say, in event of engagement of labour force through intermediary which is otherwise in ordinary course of events and involves continuity in work, legislature is candid enough to record its abolition since, involvement of contractor may have its social evil of labour exploitation and thus contractor ought to go out of scene bringing together principal employer and contract labourers, rendering employment as direct, and resultantly a direct employee - Writ appeals dismissed
JUDGMENT :
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.
(Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the common order, dated 07.02.2018, passed in W.P.(MD) Nos.13054 & 1410 of 2014, on the file of this Court.)
1. These writ appeals have been filed by the Executive Engineer, Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board and two others (hereinafter, referred to as ?the Management?) challenging the common order, dated 07.02.2018, passed in W.P.(MD) Nos.13054 and 1410 of 2014.
2. The respondents/workmen filed W.P.(MD) No.13054 of 2014 praying for a direction to the appellant/Management to implement the order, dated 25.11.2013, passed by the Inspector of Labour, Theni, in Pro.No.475/2012.
3. The appellant/Management filed W.P.(MD) No.1410 of 2014 seeking to quash the order, dated 25.11.2013, bearing Na.Ka.No.475/2012, passed by the Inspector of Labour, Theni, in C.P.Nos.1 to 29, except C.P.Nos.12, 18, 25, 27 and 28.
4. By the common order, dated 07.02.2018, the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.1410 of 2014 filed by the appellant/Management was dismissed and the writ petition in W.P.(MD) No.13054 of 2014 filed by the respondents/workmen was allowed.
5. Mrs. Porkodi Karnan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Management, elaborately referred to the factual position, which led to the filing of the petitions before the Inspector of Labour, Theni and how the claims of the respondents/workmen were wholly unsustainable. It is submitted that the learned Writ Court erroneously concluded that there was evidence to establish that the respondents/workmen had completed 480 days of continuous service in 24 calender months. It is further submitted that the learned Writ Court erred in concluding that the respondents/workmen are the direct employees of the appellant/Management, when such fact was not proved by the respondents/workmen. It is further submitted that all the respondents/workmen were contract labourers and they can never be termed as direct employees of the appellant/Management in the absence of any proof to show that wages/salary was paid to them by the appellant/Management. Further, it is submitted that sofar as the appellant/Management is concerned, the State Government has not issued any notification prohibiting the engagement of contract labourers for implementing water supply scheme and in the absence of any notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the respondents/workmen cannot claim absorption as permanent employees of the appellant/Management. Further, it is submitted that there are several decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court, wherein, it has been held that the contract labourers, who are engaged in a scheme work, cannot claim regularization of services.
6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant/Management had elaborately referred to the findings recorded by the Inspector of Labour with a view to demonstrate that the order passed by him is erroneous and the learned Writ Court ought to have interfered with the order passed by the Inspector of Labour, and set aside the same.
7. Mr. J. Ashok, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/workmen, submitted that the Inspector of Labour conducted an elaborate exercise and arrived at a factual finding that the respondents/workmen have been engaged for a continuous period of 480 days in 24 calender months and thereby, entitled for being absorbed as regular employees. Further, the Inspector of Labour assessed the nature of the work and recorded a factual finding that the work assigned to the respondents/workmen is perennial in nature. Further, various decisions of the Division Bench of this Court have been referred to by the Inspector of Labour in his order and the reasons assigned by him are cogent and the learned Writ Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/Management challenging the order of the Inspector of Labour.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/workmen,
