SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4152

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 
D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
M/s NLC Tamilnadu Power Limited, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer - Petitioner 
Versus
The Tamilnadu Min Uzhiyar Mathiya Amaippu, Represented by its Secretary and Anr. – Respondents
W.P. No.12039 of 2021 and W.M.P. No.12809 of 2021
Decided On : 04-03-2025 


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Yashodh Varadhan, Senior Counsel Assisted by Mr. N. Nithianandam.
For the Respondents: Mr. V. Ajoy Khose, Mr. K.S. Jaya Ganesh, Senior Panel Counsel.

The authority rightly ensured wage parity for contract workers under comparable conditions; contract labourers deserve equal pay for similar work, reflecting principles of fair treatment.

Headnote:(A) Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Rule 25(2)(v)(a) and (b) - Writ petition challenging an award concerning wage parity for contract workers under the authority of Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner - Court affirmed that wages should be aligned with minimum wages applicable in similar employment contexts. (Paras 5.1, 6.1, 10)

(B) Jurisdictional Scope - The authority rightly exercised power under the rules despite dismissing certain claims, emphasizing that it must ensure fair wages to prevent exploitation of contract workers - Findings deemed to not violate natural justice principles. (Paras 4.7, 9.4, 10.2)

(C) Locus Standi - Objections regarding the trade union's capacity to raise claims dismissed; the authority's suo motu powers acknowledged - Contractors not deemed necessary parties for the adjudication process. (Paras 6.1, 7.1)

(D) Appeal Rights - The management was informed that appeal avenues existed, yet failed to pursue them, reinforcing the court’s ruling to dismiss the petition. (Paras 10.1)

Findings of Court:
The authority’s investigation and award were justified, reflecting proper application of rules and consideration of similar employment conditions.

Issues: The main issues pertained to the maintainability of the petition by the trade union, necessity of including contractors, and the appropriateness of wage comparisons made by the authority.

Ratio Decidendi: The authority’s decision was upheld on the grounds that contract workers performing similar work should be compensated accordingly, with judicial precedence underscoring the importance of fair treatment in employment.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to the impugned award. (Para 1)
2. management's perspective on wage parity. (Para 2)
3. workmen's claims and supporting arguments. (Para 3)
4. submissions from both parties. (Para 4)
5. core questions posed for consideration. (Para 5)
6. trade union's maintainability. (Para 6)
7. presence of contractors as necessary parties. (Para 7)
8. authority's powers under relevant rules. (Para 8)
9. principles of natural justice in the inquiry. (Para 9)
10. appropriateness of benefits granted based on comparison. (Para 10)
11. court's dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 11)

ORDER :

(D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.)

A.The Writ Petition:

This writ petition challenges the impugned award issued by the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), who is the authority under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on 30.04.2021. It seeks to quash the award concerning the directions provided in paragraph No. 12 (ii) to (vii) and to assert that the consequent findings in the award are illegal, contrary, and in complete derogation of the provisions of the Act and the rules established thereunder, and for further orders. In the challenged award, the 2nd respondent considered the application of the 1st respondent – Union as per rule 25 (2) (v)(a) of the Contract Labour (Central) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Central Rules'). After conducting an inquiry and evaluating the cases of both parties, it granted the following reliefs in paragraph No. 12, which is extracted hereunder:

“ORDER

(i). The Claim of the Claimant Union for the payment of same and similar wages under the provision of Rule 25(2)(v)(a)&(b) is DISMISSED.

(ii). However, all contract workers employed in the "Coal Handling System" of the Establishment of the Respondent shall be paid the Minimum wages being paid to the contract workers who handle coal anywhere in India, as ordered by the Coal India Ltd., and also being paid by NLCIL in it's Coal Unit at Talabira, Odhisha. Such wages of the High Power Committee is to be paid with effect from 01-06-2021 and also at the rates as and when revised by the Coal India Ltd., This Minimum wage shall consist of Basic, VDA etc., as being paid in Coal India Ltd.,

(iii). All contract workers employed in the "other Divisions" of the Establishment of the Respondent shall be entitled for the "Settlement wages" as being paid to the contract workers employed in the NLC Thermal Power Station at Neyveli Campus.

(iv). From the very first day of employment, all contract workers employed in the Establishment of the Respondent shall also be entitled for the Group Insurance Coverage on par with the contract workers employed in the NLC Thermal Power Station at Neyveli campus.

(v). The rate of wages in the tender documents shall be provided accordingly to enable the contractor concerned to smoothly pass such minimum benefits to the eligible workers.

(vi). The Chief Executive Officer of the Respondent should be informed of and satisfied before stopping any contract worker from employment in order to guard against such frequent complaints of change of contract workers with a view to extract money. Also the particulars such as name, designation, date of joining, date of cessation, division, reason(s) for stoppage etc., need to be entered by the Head of the HR Department in a prescribed Register and the same should be initialed by the said C.E.O and also made available to the Officers of this Authority whenever demanded.

(vii). The above Order shall come into effect from 1.6.2021.”

Aggrieved by the same, the Management has filed the present Writ Petition.

B.Case of the Management:

2. The case of the Management is that on 10.05.2019, the trade union submitted a petition to the Management demanding wage parity for contract workers, based on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.213 of 2013 dated 26.10.2016. Subsequently, on 20.05.2019, the trade union submitted a similar petition to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top