Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
NLC Tamilnadu Power Limited, Represented by its Chief Executive Officer – Appellant
Versus
Tamilnadu Min Uzhiyar Mathiya Amaippu, Represented by its Secretary – Respondent
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 Esta
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.
The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner has jurisdiction to determine wage parity for contract workers performing similar work as regular employees under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CL (R & A) Central Rules....
Point of law: Labour Law – arrears of pay – Court need not advert to the submissions made on behalf of the management as the same would tantamount to adjudication of the controversy on merits.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the statutory right conferred by Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the 1971 Rules, which guarantees parity in wages and benefits to contract labours engaged with....
The Industrial Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring a contract as sham without a prohibition notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act, which is necessary for such a determination.
it is difficult to extend minimum time scale to the petitioners as they were not engaged by respondent Nos. 4 to 11 either on contract basis or outsourcing basis.
A judgment contrary to the evidence or without evidence is perverse. Concession of counsel on such facts and law does not bind the party.Master-servant relationship.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for contract labourers to comply with the terms and conditions stipulated for regularisation and permanent absorption, including....
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
