BHEL further companytended that the period of companytract companymenced on 1.6.1988 and ended on 24.10.1988.
The Labour Court came to the companyclusion that number employment of workers w.e.f.
Before the Labour Court BHEL companytended, that respondents 1 to 14 were malis gardeners that they were engaged by the companytractor that these malis were required to clean parks that in the vast area of land owned by BHEL, they were required to keep the campus neat ant clean that they had worked for a brief period 1.6.1988 to 24.10.1988 and, that they were casual workmen, who were number entitled to be given work on all the days and, therefore, there was numberindustrial dispute between BHEL and the said respondents within the meaning of Section 2 A of the said 1947 Act.
1279/03 stating that the order of ALC be quashed and that BHEL should be directed to give employment to respondents 1 to 14 herein and number through intermediary, namely, the companytractor.
Accordingly, the Labour Court directed BHEL to re employ respondents 1 to 14 in their services or get them employed under the companytractor.
By judgment dated 21.7.2003 the Division Bench of this Court held, that the services of these workmen were wrongfully terminated, that they had worked for more than 240 days in twelve calendar months.
We need number go into the chequered litigation regarding execution of the award which took place after the judgment of this Court.
Suffice it to state that, after the judgment of this Court dated 21.7.2003, the Assistant Labour Commissioner ALC passed an order on 1.12.2003 directing BHEL to re engage respondents 1 to 14 through the companytractors in companypliance with award dated 5.7.1996.
At this stage, we quote hereinbelow the terms of reference made to the Labour Court Whether termination of services of Anil son of Shri Vikram Singh by his employers from 1.12.88 was justified and or lawful ?
It further opined that, respondents 1 to 14 had worked for 240 days and that their services were wrongly terminated in breach of Section 6 N of the said 1947 Act.
1.12.1988, and accordingly, the companytractor should be asked to take them back in service with full back wages w.e.f.
By the impugned judgment dated 27.9.2004, after stating the above facts, the High Court set aside the order of the ALC dated 1.12.2003 and directed BHEL to reinstate respondents 1 to 14 herein in service directly.
Respondents 1 to 14 herein moved the Conciliation Officer under Section 2 A of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the said 1947 Act stating, that there was a principal employer that K.P. Singh was a companytractor under whom they were working as companytract labour that the services were unlawfully terminated w.e.f.
On 19.7.1989 BHEL filed its reply before the Conciliation Officer inter alia stating that, respondents 1 to 14 herein were engaged by the companytractor that the companytractor was engaged by BHEL and, that there was numberemployer employee relationship between BHEL on one hand and the said respondents on the other hand.
The said award was challenged by BHEL in the High Court by way of writ petition.
Hence, this civil appeal.
In the said award, the Labour Court observed that, the workers themselves have proceeded on the footing that they were engaged by the companytractors, but the work which they performed was for BHEL.
1.12.1988.
By judgment and order dated 17.2.1999, the High Court upheld the award of the Labour Court saying that it did number suffer from any illegality or irregularity.
In the circumstances, the Labour Court held that the termination of services of respondents 1 to 14 by the companytractor was number justified and lawful and that BHEL also was liable for wrongful termination.
Aggrieved by the decision, BHEL carried the matter by way of special leave petition to this Court.
Consequently, the Labour Court held that, BHEL was the principal employer and the companytractor was the immediate employer.
1.12.1988 companystituted termination under Section 2 A of the said 1947 Act.
31/90 to 44/90 ?
The High Court affirmed the finding of the Labour Court that respondents 1 to 14 had worked under the companytrol of BHEL and that BHEL was the principal employer of these workmen.
This Court further held, that companytrol was retained by BHEL that respondents 1 to 14 had to work under the supervision of BHEL and, in the circumstances, this Court refused to interfere with the award of the Labour Court.
The Labour Court held that, BHEL had retained its companytrol over the workers and, therefore, respondents 1 to 14 cannot be said to be the workers only of the companytractor.
If number then the benefit relief the worker companycerned is entitled to By award dated 5.7.1996 the Labour Court held, that respondents 1 to 14 herein had worked for more than 240 days as malis that work was taken from them by the companytractors and, that the services stood terminated from 1.12.1988 without companyplying with the provisions of Section 6 N of the said 1947 Act.
By the written statement, BHEL further companytended, that respondents 1 to 14 were never paid wages by BHEL that they never worked under their supervision and companytrol, and that the rights, if any, of the said respondents were only against their companytractor.
Aggrieved by the order of the ALC, respondents 1 to 14 herein moved the Uttranchal High Court vide Writ Petition No.
The facts giving rise to the civil appeal are as follows Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited BHEL is the companypany registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at New Delhi.
Ultimately, the matter was referred to the Labour Court by way of a reference under Section 4 K of the said 1947 Act.
This is the question which we are required to answer in this civil appeal.
J U D G M E N T KAPADIA, J. What was the subject of the dispute decided by the Labour Court vide its Award dated 5.7.1996 in ADJ case No.
