Back
HARSH BUNGER
Mark Exhaust System Limited – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges employment status of workers. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. respondents argue for direct employment relationship. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court emphasizes evidence needed for employment claims. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. jurisdiction of industrial adjudicator affirmed. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed; no merit found. (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT
Harsh Bunger, J.
Petitioner (M/s Mark Exhaust System Limited) has filed the instant writ petition, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside Clause-1 of the Reference Order ("whether workers were employed with the management or with contractor") and to delete the name of the petitioner from the array of the parties in the Reference Order dated 04.03.2020 (Annexure P-14).
A further prayer has been made for staying proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Circle-II, Gurugram qua the petitioner.
2. Briefly, the petitioner is stated to be engaged in the manufacture of auto parts and claims that it has approximately 90 regular workmen. It is the case of the petitioner that for dealing with other incidental works like loading, unloading, security services, drivers, house-kee
The determination of employment relationships and the validity of contracts lies within the jurisdiction of the industrial adjudicator, particularly when claims of sham contracts are raised.
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.
The mere issuance of a prohibition notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act does not automatically lead to the absorption of contract labour as employees of the principal employer; such a determ....
The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by declaring the contract as sham without sufficient evidence, and the relationship between the contractor and workers was valid under the Contract Labour Act.
A dispute between a principal employer and contractors' workers does not constitute a valid industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, due to the absence of an employ....
Absorption of contract labour – There is no provision under Section 10 of CLRA Act that workers/employees employed by contractor automatically become employees of appellant and/or employees of contra....
The court ruled that without establishing an employer-employee relationship, reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act is inappropriate; contracts are valid unless proven otherwise.
The court established that without clear evidence of direct employment, claims of an employer-employee relationship under contract labour provisions cannot succeed.
The burden of proof for continuous service of 240 days rests on the workman, and mere self-serving statements are insufficient to establish this claim.
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
