By the Court.—Heard Dr. Ashok Nigam, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Sri Ajai Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Virendra Misra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2.

2. This Special Appeal questions the correctness of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 5.7.2016 arising out of the order passed on 12.2.2009 by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, whereby it has refused to refer a dispute as raised by the first respondent. In order to understand the controversy, the order passed by the Government of India is extracted hereunder :

“NO - L-12011/115/2008 - IR (B-II)

Government of India//Bharat Sarkar

Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya

New Delhi, Dated: 12/02/2009

To,

1. The Chief General Manager

NBSC

Sector - ‘H’, LDA Colony, Kanpur Road

Lucknow

2. The President

NBARD Sansthan Karmachari Sabha, 25/26

Union Bhavan Arya Nagar

Lucknow

Subject: I.D. between the management of NABARD/NBSC/BIRD and President, National Bank for Agriculture & Rural Development Sansthan Karmachari Sabha, Lucknow over the issue in illegal termination of services by the management - reg.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to the Failure of Conciliation Report No. K 7(9)/2008-E.1 dated 18.8.2008 from the RLC (Kanpur (U.P.)) received in this Ministry on 28/08/2008 on the above mentioned subject and to say that, prima facie, this Ministry does not consider this dispute fit for adjudication for the following reasons:

“The management has taken certificate of Registration under sub-section 2 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Contract Labour (R&A) Central Rules, 1971. The Union failed to provide employer-employee relationship between the management and the workman. Hence, the dispute raised is not maintainable.”

Yours faithfully

(Rajinder Kumar)

DESK OFFICER

T.No. - 23001147

Email - irb2@lisd.delhi.nic.in

Copy to:

1. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur (U.P.)

2. Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Kanpur (U.P.)”

3. The aforesaid order had been passed on the complaint dated 6.4.2005, copy whereof is at page - 126 of the paper book. The relevant paragraph of the said complaint is extracted hereunder :

mDr izfr”Bku ij Bsdk Je ¼mRlknu ,oa fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e 1970 ykxw gksrk gS A lsok;kstdksa }kjk fu;fer izd`fr ds dk;Z dks Bsdsnkj ds ek/;e ls fu;ksftr deZpkfj;kssa ls djk;k tk jgk gS] ijUrq mUgsa fu/kkZfjr osru rFkk vU; lqfo/kk,a tks lh/ks lsok ls fu;ksftr deZpkjh gS] muds lerqY; ugh ns jgs gS] cfYd tks osru fn;k tk jgk gS og cgqr de fn;k tkrk gS A ;gh rd fd dsUnz vkSj izns'k ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr vlaxfBr {ks= ds Jfedksa dks ns; osru vkSj eagxkà HkRrk Hkh ugh fn;k tkrk gSA budk ih0,Q0 ugh dkVk tkrk] esfMdy ugh fn;k tkrk gS A R;ksgkjh] okf"kZd vkSj vkdfLed fdlh izdkj dh NqVVh ugh nh tkrh gS A

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that the nature of the complaint itself clearly amounts to an admission of the fact that the workers were contract labourers of the Contractor and there was admittedly no employer-employee relationship so as to construe an industrial dispute and therefore the conclusion drawn by the authority was correct. This aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the learned Single Judge and therefore, the order is vitiated.

5. The next argument of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 is itself a complete Code where any such relief can be claimed and therefore, the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is clearly ousted.

6. The third contention is that in view of the definition of the word ‘workman’ contained in the 1947 Act and compared to that of the 1970 Act, it is clear that the contract labourers represented by the first respondent were not workmen as per the said definition. It is therefore submitted that in view of all these submissions, the conclusion drawn by the Central Government is correct for which reliance is