Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 22580
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J
THE MYSORE ELECTRICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
ENGINEERING & GENERAL WORKERS UNION NO.2 – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 3788 OF 2012 (L-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: H M MURALIDHAR
For the Respondents: K B NARAYANA SWAMY
The absence of a notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA does not bar the Industrial Tribunal's jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of reinstatement of contract workers classified under sham agreements linked to perennial work.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 10(1) and 7 - Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Sections 10(1) and 12 - Dispute involving claims for reinstatement of workers classified as contract labour. The tribunal's findings on the sham nature of contract labour agreements, coupled with determinations regarding the perennial nature of the work, led to the conclusion that the workers should be regarded as employees of the principal employer. The Industrial Tribunal's direction for the regularization of services was upheld as it struck a balance between employer and employee rights emphasizing that notification requirement under Section 10(1) is not a prerequisite for establishing such claims. (Paras 21, 24, 25)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court affirmed that the absence of a Section 10(1) notification does not preclude the tribunal from adjudicating disputes over reinstatement of contract workers if evidence supports the work being perennial. (Paras 21.1, 22.1, 23.2)
(C) Employment Rights - Determining the status of contract workers in relation to their actual responsibilities, ensuring compliance with labour laws and workers' benefits. (Paras 20.1, 22.2)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. employer's operations related to contract labor. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. disputes raised regarding employee status of contract workers. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. tribunal orders during proceedings on workmen's services. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. arguments related to jurisdiction and legal standing. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. court's analysis of contract labor and its implications. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. conclusion and order directing reinstatement of workers. (Para 25) |
ORDER
1. The petitioner-employer is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a) Call for the records on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore, in I.D.No.5/2000, peruse the same, allow the writ petition, quash the impugned Award dated 3rd December 2011 passed in I.D.No.5/2000 vide Annexure ‘A’ by issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari, consequently, dismiss the dispute.
b) Or in the alternative pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to pass on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The employer is an undertaking of State of Karnataka engaged in manufacture and sale of power breakers of various capacities. It has its own service rules, Cadre and Recruitment Rules for appointment of regular employees which is what is alleged to have been followed by the employer.
3. The services which are concerned with in the present matter are those related to house-keeping, gardening, loading and unloading which is alleged to require only a few hours a day. It is on that basis that the employer had entrusted those works to labour contractors for lumpsum amount by entering into contract.
4. The contractors are alleged to have engaged their own men to carry out the said work. The house- keeping and gardening work was entrusted to “Sri.Shankar Nursery (associated)”, work of loading and unloading was entrusted to “M/s Associated Detective & Security Services”.
5. On 7.03.2000, Sri Shankar Nursery terminated the contract relating to house keeping and gardening. Similarly on 24.03.2000, M/s Associated Detective & Security Services terminated the contract and thereafter withdrew their men.
6. In pursuance thereof, the employer entrusted the work to “M/s Essential Services” vide contract dated 29.03.2000 which also came to be withdrawn by the said contractor vide letter dated 29.11.2000. It is alleged that thereafter the employer has not engaged any contract workers.
7. The persons engaged by Sri Shankar and M/s Associated Detective & Security Services had filed a petition on 31.03.1999 through the respondent Union before the Deputy Labour Commissioner for a declaration that the workers whose names are mentioned in Annexure-A thereto were always employees of the employer and therefore they are entitled to get all the benefits as applicable to the permanent workmen from the date of their joining service. It was contended that the said workers were discharging their work which were perennial in nature along with other permanent workmen and therefore they are entitled to be declared as permanent workmen.
8. The employer opposed the said petition by contending that the persons named in annexure to the petition were not discharging their jobs as mentioned against their name, the employer does not even know them. The work entrusted to the contractors was house-keeping, gardening, loading and unloading which required only few hours of work in a day and therefore, the same cannot be said to be perennial in nature and therefore, they were not entitled to be treated as permanent workmen.
9. The matter having been referred to conciliation, the conciliation efforts failed and as such, the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 10 (1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 [for short ‘ID Act’] referred the points of dispute for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru on 14.12.1999.
10. The points which were referred for adjudication are as under:
i.
