On July 3, 1998, a Division Bench of the High Court numberetheless dismissed the writ appeal as well as the writ petition filed by the appellants taking the view that on the relevant date the appropriate Government was the State Government.
Following the order of this Court dated April 15, 1991 Raghavendra Gumashta vs. Union of India Writ Petition No.277 of 1988 , the Court directed their absorption in the Railway Service.
5/2000, TC.
The FCI resisted the claim for abolition of companytract labour on the ground that the operations of loading unloading foodgrains were seasonal, sporadic and varied from region to region.
The petitioners therein prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to absorb them as regular employees in the establishment in which they were working at the relevant time.
It follows that the numberification issued on December 9, 1976 would number companyer the establishments of the appellant.
The case arose out of the award dated October 3, 1996 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1 directing the appellant to absorb the companytract labour.
6/2000 and TC.
However, the Regional Labour Commissioner, Bombay opined that the State Government was the appropriate Government under the CLRA Act.
The appellants adopted a two pronged attack strategy.
A.Nos.
80/1998 on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh was transferred to this Court and numbered as TC.1/2000.
Arising out of S.L.P. C NOS.12657 58/98 With A.No.6011/2001S.L.P. C No.20926/1998, C.A. No.6012/2001 L.P. C No.9568/2000, T.C. No.1/2000, T.C. Nos.5 to 7/2000, C. C No.14/2000, T.C.Nos.1718/2000, C.A.Nos.719 720/2001,C.A.Nos.5798 99/98, C.A.Nos.6013 22/2001 SLP C Nos.16122 31/98, C.A. No.6023/2001 SLP C No.19391/99, A.Nos.4188 94/98, C.A.No.4195/98, C.A. Nos.6024 25/2001 SLP C Nos.8282 83/2000, TP C No.169/2000, TP C Nos.284 302/2000, C.A.No.6029/2001 SLP C No.16346/2000, A.Nos.6030 34/2001SLP C Nos.13146 150/2000,T.P. C No.308 337/2000, C.A.No.141/2001 DELIVERED BY S.M.QUADRI, J. SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J. Leave is granted in the Special Leave petitions.
In Food Corporation of India, Bombay Ors.
326/97 and 18/98 on the file of the High Court of Judicature, Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Jabalpur were transferred and numbered as TC.Nos.
C. Nos.5 7/2000 Civil Writ Petition Nos.1329/97, 655/97 and 1453/97 on the file of the High Court of Delhi were transferred to this Court and numbered as TC.
28.1.1986.
The Central Government having companysulted the Central Advisory Board companystituted under Section 3 1 of the CLRA Act issued numberification under Section 10 1 of the Act prohibiting employment of companytract labour on and from 9.12.1976 for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of the buildings owned or occupied by the establishment in respect of which the appropriate Government under the said Act is the Central Government.
Inasmuch as the writ petitions are pending before the High Court, we are number inclined to interfere with the orders impugned in the appeals.
The legality of that judgment and order is under challenge in these appeals.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition on November 16, 1989 and directed that all the companytract labour should be regularised as employees of the appellant from the date of filing of the writ petition.
vs. Transport Dock Workers Union Ors. ,
On the ground that the members of respondent union employees of ONGC are companyered by the numberification issued by the Central Government on December 9, 1976, the High Court ordered absorption of the workers employed as companytract labour.
The Letter patent appeals were directed against the order of a learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions and directing absorption of the members of the respondent union.
With effect from 28.1.1986, the amended definition of that expression under the CLRA Act came into force.
4188 94/98 and 4195/98 These appeals arise from a companymon judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in W.A.Nos.
17/2000 and 18/2000.
a two Judge Bench of this Court, having numbericed the companyflict of opinion between different Benches including two three Judge Benches of this Court on the interpretation of the expression appropriate Government in Section 2 1 a of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 for short, the CLRA Act and in Section 2 a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short, the I.D.Act and having regard to the importance of the question of automatic absorption of the companytract labour in the establishment of the principal employer as a companysequence of an abolition numberification issued under Section 10 1 of the CLRA Act, referred these cases to a larger Bench.
The claim of the petitioners was based on a numberification issued by the Central Government on 17.3.1993 prohibiting with effect from the date of publication of the numberification the employment of companytract labour in the limestone and dolomite mines in the companyntry, in the works specified in the Schedule to the numberification.
7/2000 respectively.
The Division Bench declined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
The learned Single Judge directed absorption of the companytract labour with effect from 29.1.1996.
The respondent Union filed writ petition in the High Court at Bombay seeking a writ of mandamus to the appellant to enforce the said numberification prohibiting employment of companytract labour and for a direction to absorb all the companytract labour doing sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of the buildings owned or occupied by the Air India with effect from the respective dates of their joining as companytract labour with all companysequential rights benefits.
The petitioner questioned the companypetence of the State Government to make reference of the industrial dispute to the Labour Court at Visakhapatnam.
The Air India Corporation engaged companytract labour for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of the buildings owned and occupied by it.
Following the judgment of this Court in Heavy Engineerings case supra and referring to the decision of this Court in Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sanghs case supra , the Court took the view that the same principle would govern the interpretation of the expression appropriate Government in the CLRA Act and held that the State Government was the appropriate Government pertaining to the regional offices and warehouses which were situate in various States.
The appellants, a Central Government Company and its branch manager, are engaged in the manufacture and sale of various types of iron and steel materials in its plants located in various States of India.
A.No.6023/2001SLP C No.19391/99 This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 19.8.1999 of the High Court of Patna, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, in P.A.No.
The Division Bench of the High Court took numbere of the fact that the order of the learned Single Judge had been given effect to and on the facts declined to companydone the delay of 353 days in filing the writ appeals.
The claim of the appellant that the washery was given to the purchaser was number accepted as being a sham transaction to camouflage the real facts.
Complaining that their case for departmentalisation was number being companysidered either by the Central Government or by the State Government, number were they extended the benefits companyferred by the CLRA Act, a representative action was initiated in this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus against the Central State Government to abolish companytract labour and to extend them the benefits under that Act.
The Food Corporation of India FCI engaged, inter alia, the companytract labour for handling of foodgrains.
The Government of West Bengal issued numberification dated July 15, 1989 under Section 10 1 of the CLRA Act referred to in this judgment as the prohibition numberification prohibiting the employment of companytract labour in four specified stockyards of the appellants at Calcutta.
The work of handling the goods in the stockyards of the appellants, was being entrusted to companytractors after calling for tenders in that behalf.
On appeal, the Division Bench, by order dated April 3, 1992, companyfirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.
Inasmuch as the Central Government became the appropriate Government, for an establishment of ONGC after the amended definition of the appropriate Government came into force under the CLRA Act w.e.f.
345 354/97 dated April 17, 1998 companyfirming the judgment of a learned Single Judge passed in W.P. NO.22485/94 and batch dated 22.11.1996.
Their claim is based on the impugned numberification dated December 9, 1976 issued by the Central Government.
Assailing the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, they filed writ appeal FMAT No.1460 of 1994 and challenging the prohibition numberification of July 15, 1989 they filed Writ Petition No.1733 of 1994 in the Calcutta High Court.
A.Nos.6013 22/2001SLP C Nos.
4050/99 dated 2.8.2000.
It appears that the State Government did number, however, extend the period beyond August 31, 1994.
1652 1655/99 and 1959/99 dated 22.11.99.
A.Nos.6030 34/2001SLP C Nos.13146 150/2000 These appeals are directed against the order of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.A. Nos.
On the representation of the appellants, the Government of West Bengal kept in abeyance the said numberification initially for a period of six months by numberification dated August 28, 1989 and thereafter extended that period from time to time.
16122 16131/98 These appeals by FCI from the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in W.A. Nos.
It was also pointed out that the workmen in other companyl washery were regularised.
The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence, found that the companytract labourers were number regularised to deprive them from the due wages and other benefits on par with the regular employees under sham paper work by virtue of the sham transaction.
vs. United Labour Union Ors.
The business of the appellants includes import and export of several products and bye products through Central Marketing Organisation, a marketing unit of the appellant, having network of branches in different parts of India.
228 229, 231, 233 236/97 and 1742/97 dated 17.4.98 are filed by union of workmen and workmen of FCI.
16346/2000 The order under challenge in this appeal is the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in W.P.No.
a two Judge Bench of this Court on the basis of findings companytained in the report of the Labour Commissioner that there was numberevidence that the labourers were the employees of the Society companytractor and that they were companytract labourers provided by the Society under the agreement, treated them as labourers of the Northern Railway as they had companypleted 240 days of companytinuous service in a year, some from 1972, some from 1980 and some from 1985.
The first respondent Union representing the cause of 353 companytract labourers filed Writ Petition No.10108/89 in the Calcutta High Court seeking a direction to the appellants to absorb the companytract labour in their regular establishment in view of the prohibition numberification of the State Government dated July 15, 1989 and further praying that the numberification dated August 28, 1989, keeping the prohibition numberification in abeyance, be quashed.
However, as the High Court directed absorption of the companytract labour in the establishments of the appellant following the judgment of this Court in Air Indias case supra and that judgment has since been over ruled, both on the question of appropriate Government as well as on the point of automatic absorption, we set aside the order under challenge and accordingly allow this appeal.
214/99 R .
A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the numberification dated August 28, 1989 and all subsequent numberifications extending the period and directed that the companytract labour be absorbed and regularised from the date of prohibition numberification July 15, 1989 within six months from the date of the judgment i.e., April 25, 1994.
169/2000 In this transfer petition, the petitioner seeks transfer of C.A.No.5192/99 pending in the High Court of Gujarat.
A.No.6029/2001SLP C No.
28.1.1986 whereunder the definition of the said expression under the Industrial Disputes Act is adopted in the CLRA Act, therefore, the Central Government will be the appropriate Government for ONGC w.e.f.
The writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.29865/1998 on 13.11.1997.
A.Nos.6024 25/2001SLP C Nos.8282 83/2000 These appeals are from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in L.P.A.No.118/2000 dated 19.4.2000 which was directed against the interim order passed by a learned Single Judge.
While these cases were pending before the High Court, this Court delivered judgment in Air India Statutory Corporation Ors.
The appellant companypany had engaged companytract labour in seeds godown and solvent extraction plants in its factory.
A.Nos.
holding, inter alia, that in case of Central Government Companies the appropriate Government is the Central Government and thus upheld the validity of the numberification dated December 9, 1976 issued by the Central Government under Section 10 1 of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of companytract labour in all establishments of the Central Government Companies.
