Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1695

2009(7) Supreme 472
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Board & Anr. — Appellants
versus
U.P. Vidyut Mazdoor Sangh — Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 1989 of 2002
Decided on : 04-11-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants : Ms. Shobha Dikshit, Sr. Adv., Pradeep Misra, Daleep Kr. Dhayani, Manoj Kr. Sharma, Adv., with her for the Appellant(s).
For the Respondents:J. C. Batra, Sr. Adv., Goodwill Indeevar, Advs., with him for the Respondent( s ).

IMPORTANT POINT
Nature of work, duties and responsibilities attached thereto are relevant in comparing and evaluating as to whether workmen employed through contractor perform same or similar kind of work as workmen directly employed by principal employer.

Headnote:Uttar Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975 – Rule 25(2) (v) (a) – Application filed by respondent 1 Uttar Pradesh Vidyut Mazdoor sangh for payment of same wages and other facilities in favour of contract labour working in second filtration plant of Anpara Thermal power project as was being paid by employer to its employees in main filtration plant – Order passed by Labour Court holding that contract labour in temporary filtration plant should be paid the wages at the rate admissible to workings in main plant – Writ Petition there against – Dismissed by High Court – Special Appeal – Dismissed by Division Bench – Appeal – Rule 25(2)(v)(a) incorporates the principal of equal pay for equal work – By statutory provision it was mandated that the employees engaged by employer though contractor who perform the same or similar kind of work must be paid the same wages and facilities as being paid to employees employed directly by principal employer of the establishment – Instantly except recording that the contract labour engaged through contractors was doing similar work, Labour Commissioner in its order had not adverted to the evidence and material placed before it -Despite a specific case set up by appellants to show that contract labour in filtration plant engaged through contractors not performed the same or similar Kind of work as was done by employees employed directed by employer in main plant, Labour commissioner did not advert to these aspects at all – Labour commissioner ought to have adverted to the nature of duties of the staff in the two categories, degree of skill and dimensions of the job for reaching the conclusion that the work done by contract labour in the second filtration plant was same or similar to the kind of work done by the employees employed by the principal employer directly in the main plant – No discussion at all by labour commissioner as to how he arrived at the conclusion about similarity of work – Order of single judge was no better – Hence order of Labour commissioner and High Court set aside – Application under Rule 25 (2) (v) (a) restored to file of Labour commissioner – Appeal allowed to said extent (Paras 9 to 16)
       Facts of the case :
        Issue in consideration in present case was whether contract labour working in second filtration plant of Anpara Thermal power project was entitled to payment of same wages and other facilities as was being paid by employer to its employees in main filtration plant.
       Findings of the Court :
        In the instant case except recording that contract labour engaged through contractors was doing similar work, labour commissioner in its order had not adverted to evidence and material placed before it Labour commissioner ought to have adverted to the nature of duties of staff in two categories, degree of skill and dimensions of the job for reaching the conclusion that the work done by contract labour in second filtration plant was same or similar to kind of work done by employees employed by principal employer directly in the main plant. There was no discussion at all by labour commissioner as to how he arrived at the conclusion about similarity of work. Order of Single judge was no better.Hence impugned order passed by labour commissioner and High Court were set aside. The application made by union under Rule 25 (2) (v) (a) of Rules, 1975 was restored to the file of labour commissioner.

JUDGEMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.—

This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated August 3, 1999 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby special appeal preferred by the present appellants against the judgment and order dated May 14, 1999 passed by the Single Judge has been dismissed. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition preferred by the present appellants challenging the order dated October 24, 1998 passed by the Labour Commissioner, U.P.

2. Uttar Pradesh Vidyut Mazdoor Sangh (first respondent-hereinafter referred to as ‘Union’,) made an application under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975, (‘Rules, 1975’, for short) before the Labour Commissioner, Kanpur praying therein that order be passed for payment of the same wages and other facilities in favour of contract labour working . in . second filtration plant of Anpara Thermal Power Project as are being paid by the employer to its employees in the main’ filtration plant. The Union set up the case that there are two filtration plants in Anpara Thermal Power Project; out of these plants in one plant (for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as ‘main plant’) regular employees are employed by the Electricity Board while in the other filtration plant, contract labour is being employed through contractors. In both filtration plants, the nature of work done by all these employees is same but the workers are paid their wages at different rates. Twenty-six workers, who have been directly appointed by the Electricity Board,’ are being paid regular pay scale with permissible allowances etc. while twenty-eight contract workers engaged through two contractors are paid at the rate of Rs. 61/-:- per day for unskilled work and Rs. 71.50 per day for semi-skilled work. The Union asserted that work in both the filtration plants is of the same nature and regular.

3. The present appellants resisted the application made by the Union on diverse grounds. That there are two water filtration plants• in Anpara Thermal Power Project was admitted. However, it was submitted that main filtration plant is permanent haying the capacity of treating three million gallons water per day while the second one is temporary having the capacity of treating three lac gallons per day It was further submitted that from permanent filtration plant, supply is given to the entire colony and, ITI passed/trained operators are being appointed by the department to run it; these appointments are made by the selection committee through selection procedure on the basis of eligibility and advertisement by the Board. The permanent plant runs 24 hours; it has six pumps and each has the capacity of 170 H.P. The chemicals are mixed at this plant mechanically and for its operation eligible and responsible employees are required. In the other filtration plant which is of temporary nature, employees are engaged through contractor for its operation. The temporary filtration plant is operated by skilled and semi-skilled employees who are engaged by contractors. These workers are paid wages at the rate declared by the labour department. The appellants set up a specific case before the Labour Commissioner that the work of the employees in the two filtration plants cannot be compared and, therefore, the employees working in the temporary filtration plant are not entitled to the same wages and facilities as are being paid to the regular employees working in the main filtration plant.

4. The Labour Commissioner, however, was not persuaded by the reply submitted by the Electricity Board and vide his order dated October 24, 1998 held that the contract labour in temporary filtration plant should be paid the wages at the rate admissible to the workers in the main plant.

5. The present appellants challenged the order of the Labour Commissioner by filing writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1695

2009(7) Supreme 472SUPREME COURT OF INDIAD.K. Jain and R.M. Lodha, JJ. U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Board & Anr. — AppellantsversusU.P. Vidyut Mazdoor Sangh — RespondentCivil Appeal Nos. 1989 of 2002Decided on : 04-11-2009

IMPORTANT POINT Nature of work, duties and responsibilities attached thereto are relevant in comparing and evaluating as to whether workmen employed through contractor perform same or similar kind of work as workmen directly employed by principal employer.

2009(7) Supreme 472
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. Jain and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Board & Anr. — Appellants
versus
U.P. Vidyut Mazdoor Sangh — Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 1989 of 2002
Decided on : 04-11-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Nature of work, duties and responsibilities attached thereto are relevant in comparing and evaluating as to whether workmen employed through contractor perform same or similar kind of work as workmen directly employed by principal employer.