Back
2015 Supreme(All) 1551
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUNEET KUMAR, J.
M/s. GAIL (INDIA) LTD. ....Petitioner
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHER .....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49150 of 2015, decided on 21st December, 2015)
Counsel :
Prakash Padia and S.D. Singh for the Petitioner; Prashant Vyas, Abhishek Tandon and P.K. Sinha for the Respondents.
Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 22-A, 10, 18 (3)(b), 2(k) and 11 – Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – Section 7 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 12 – Termination – Employment – Determination of – Petitioner a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution – Also registered under Section 7 of 1970 Act for engagement of contract labour – Award would not be binding upon the petitioner/company, therefore, contractors who admittedly are the employers of the second respondent are necessary parties to the reference – Not denied that the appointment of the second respondent was not made by the petitioner-company – Tribunal can consider in addition to the disputes specified in order of reference, are only matters, incidental to the said disputes, that naturally suggests certain obvious limitations on the implied power of the Tribunal to add parties to the reference before it, purporting to exercise its implied power under Section 18(3)(b) – Respondent-workman was engaged by the petitioner-management through the contractors – Labour Court by impugned order dismissed the impleadment application stating that the contractors are neither necessary party nor does it have power to implead to a party other than the parties to the dispute – Found appropriate to implead the contractors as parties to the dispute – Impugned order to the extent it refuses to implead the contractors as parties set aside. [Paras 15 to 19]
Result; Petition Allowed.
Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The second respondent upon being terminated on 22 June 2012 approached the Ministry of Labour Court under Section 22-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, thereafter, in terms of Section 10 contained in Chapter III of the Act, a reference was made by the Ministry of Labour Court on 6 February 2013 referring the dispute to the first respondent, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur. The following reference was made :
“Whether the demand of Km. Lalita d/o Late Dashrat Prasad claiming her appointment with effect from 24 March 2009 and her termination with effect from 19 June 2012 by the management of GAIL (India) Ltd., Pata, is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled to?
2. The second respondent submitted a statement of claim before the first respondent in Industrial Dispute Case No. 16 of 2013. The petitioner a Government of India undertaking contested by filing written statement, inter alia, raising a preliminary objection that the claim is wrong, the second respondent is not an employee of the petitioner, rather an employee of M/s. Pitambra Construction, Dibiyapur a contractor appointed by the petitioner-Management under the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (Labour Contract Act, 1970). During the pendency of the proceedings before the first respondent, the petitioner filed an application (16/1-3) with a prayer to implead the following contractors to the claim petition.
“1. M/s Global S.S. Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai;
ii. M/s Uttrakhand Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Dehradun;
iii. M/s. Pitambra Construction, Dibiyapur.”
3. The workman/second respondent filed her objections. The first respondent vide order dated 16 July 2015 rejected the application to implead the labour contractors.
4. It has been averred that the petitioner being an enterprise under the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas, Government of India is a company registered under the Companies Act, a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner company outsourced certain activities/services which include secretarial, paramedical and peripheral services on contract basis. Accordingly, contract of such services were awarded to the eligible contractors by following the Contract and Procurement Policy (C&P Policy) of GAIL. Petitioner company is duly registered in terms of Section 7 of the Labour Contract Act 1970 for engagement of contract labour for performing various duties, as detailed therein, and all the contractors are duly registered under the Labour Contract Act, 1970.
5. It was further contended that the second respondent was from time to time appointed by various contractors, appointment and engagement orders were issued by the respective contractor and her service was finally terminated by M/s Pitambra Construction, Diviyapur on the ground of absenting from duty and leaving the work place without prior intimation.
6. The question for determination is, whether the private contractors could be impleaded in terms of Section 18(3) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Section 18 of the Act reads as follows :
“18. Persons on whom settlements and awards are binding.—
(1) A settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workman otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding shall be binding on the parties to the agreement.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), an arbitration award which has become enforceable shall be binding on the parties to the agreement who referred the dispute to arbitration.
(3) A settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings under this Act or an arbitration award in a case where a notification has been issued under sub-section (3A) of Section 10A or an award of a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal] which has become enforceable] shall be binding on—
(a) all parties to the industrial dispute;
(b) all other parties summoned to appear in the proceedin
