Challenge in the writ petition revolved around the question as to the effect of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 in short the Act .
The order of the Labour Commissioner was upheld by the High Court.
164 of 1989.
As numbered above, the Labour Court rejected the application.
This was for the relief that the different persons working under the different licensed companytractors are doing work similar to the work assigned to the workmen of the companypany and should have similar companyditions of service regarding wages, holidays etc.
It is registered under Chapter III of the same Act and has many licensed companytractor including one Abdul Rehman hereinafter referred to as the Contractor .
The following question was sent to the Labour Court for decision under Section 4 iv of the U.P. State Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in short the State Act Whether 61 labourers mentioned in the Appendix should be declared permanent?
So far as the question to be made permanent under the companytractor, it was found that they did number want to be declared permanent under the companytractor.
These licensed companytractors engaged many persons to do the work companytracted with them.
During pendency of the proceedings, under Rule 25 disputes were raised by the Union which is the subject matter of companysideration for the benefit of the workmen engaged by the Contractor Rehman.
If so, then from which date and with what other particulars?
Proceedings were initiated.
Fertilizer Workers Union hereinafter referred to as the Union filed an application under Rule 25 v a of the U.P. Contract Labour Regularisation and Abolition Rules, 1975 in short the Rules framed under the Act before the Labour Commissioner.
In the proceedings under Rule 25 of the Rules, the Labour Commissioner by his order dated 15.12.1984 allowed the application so far as persons engaged by the Contractor Rehman and one more licensed companytractor but for rest of the persons application for the Union was dismissed.
The Labour Court held that 61 labourers companynected with the case do number possess the right to be declared permanent under the employer respondent No.
In the background of the definition of the word employer as in clause IV of Section 2 i iv of the State Act, The Indian Explosive Limited is a manufacturer of Urea and is companyered under the Act.
Challenge before the High Court was to the order passed by the Presiding Labour Court II U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication case Arbitration dispute No.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants.
