HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J., SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited – Appellant
Versus
Rajendra Singh @ Rajendra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.
1. Heard Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Lalit Belwal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. T.A.Khan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Mohd. Shafy, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. The appeal is beyond time by 380 days. Although the appeal is highly belated as there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay, however, on persuasion of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, we also examined the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.08. 2022, which reads as follows:
“Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mohd. Shafy, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Vinay Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Kanti Ram Sharma, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners are contract employees engaged to discharge duty as Mali in Ranipur Unit of BHEL, Haridwar. According to them, they are being paid meagre amount as wages, whereas Malis appointed in the permanent establishment of the same unit, are being paid many times more amount as salary.
Petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petiti
Appeal against order relegating contract labourers' equal wage claim to Industrial Disputes Act forum dismissed, as relegation stemmed from principal employer's own objection; liberty to contest juri....
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 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....
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 authority rightly ensured wage parity for contract workers under comparable conditions; contract labourers deserve equal pay for similar work, reflecting principles of fair treatment.
Point of law : In cases where the workmen employed by the contractor perform the same or similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the principal employer of the establishment, the wage....
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 that the Labour Court cannot entertain claim petitions and adjudicate the merits and demerits of the rights of the workman under Section 33(C)(2) o....
The Regional Labour Commissioner exceeded his powers in directing the principal employer to pay the differential wages under Section 21(4) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.