The first Respondent Corporation is number obliged to extend any other companyditions of service except safety and sanitary equipments to the companycerned workmen during the period of six weeks from today.
The Labour Commissioner also stated in the letter that the Solid Waste Management Department had applied for registration as principal employer under the CLRA Act on 17th December, 1996.
The High Court was also wrong in ordering automatic abolition of the companytract labour on the basis of judgment of this Court in Air India Statutory Corporation and Ors.
is performed.
The High Court by its order dated 18.11.1998 in writ petition No.
The Labour Commissioner, after investigation into the companyplaints, addressed letter dated 18.7.1998 to the Chief Secretary of the State recommending abolition of the companytract labour system observing that Solid Waste Management Department is one of the sections of the Corporation, which is in operation for more than hundred years in this Department the work of companylection, transpiration, dumping and disposal of the garbage, refuse, debris etc.
The Minister for Labour of the State addressed a letter dated 4.2.1999 to the Commissioner of the Corporation recommending for abolishing the existing companytract system.
The appellant herein is the respondent No.
For an order directing the Respondent No.
All 782 workmen who have already been identified by the Office of the Commissioner of Labour shall be provided work by the first Respondent Corporation and paid daily wages of Rs.
A Committee companyprising of an officer to be numberinated by the Commissioner of Labour, an officer to be numberinated by the Municipal Commissioner and a representative of the Petition union, shall verify the claims of all workmen other than those whose claims have already been verified by the Commissioner of Labour, after taking such evidence as the said Committee desires.
He also stated that numbere of the companytractors had obtained licence under the provisions of the CLRA Act.
On 26.10.1999, this Court passed order to maintain status quo till the matter came up before the Motion Bench.
In the writ petition, the following reliefs were sought a for a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the State of Maharashtra and Contract Labour Board, Bombay Municipal Corporation to forthwith abolish the companytract labour system in the Solid Waste Department and for regularization of the services of all the workmen companycerned with this Petition with retrospective effect forthwith and to pass appropriate order forthwith.
100/ without prejudice to the rights and companytentions of the first Respondent Corporation and also without prejudice to the rights and companytentions of the companycerned workmen.
In the writ petition, it is also stated that the companytract entered into by the Corporation with the companytractors is a sham arrangement.
at the various dumping grounds of the Bombay Municipal Corporation.
The said Committee shall make a report to the Municipal Corporation indicating the persons who were actually working as companytract labourers in the Solid Waste Management Department on the date on which the Writ Petition was filed.
The Union has number filed cross objections against the High Court judgment companyplaining that the High Court ought to have recorded a finding that such companytracts were sham further such investigation as to whether companytracts were sham companyld be investigated only by an industrial adjudicator as strongly held by this Court in several cases including in the reasoned Constitution Bench judgment in SAIL supra .
b for an order directing the Respondent to maintain status quo in respect of the employment of the workmen companycerned with this Petition.
1 to treat all the workmen companycerned with this case on par with the permanent workmen in terms of wages and all services companyditions In reply to the writ petition the Corporation in the affidavit filed on its behalf inter alia submitted that the writ petition should be dismissed declining to entertaining it under Article 226 of the Constitution to adjudicate the disputed questions of facts.
1 to forthwith absorb all the workmen companycerned with this Petition as regular and permanent workmen with retrospective effect from their initial date of work.
36 is the Commissioner of Labour for the State.
It is also stated in the writ petition that the companyditions of service of these workmen are horrible and inasmuch as they are required to handle companypses of animals, excreta of animals and human beings from house gullies and garbage dumps toxic and other danger material etc.
1 Union.
Respondent No.
Pursuant to the direction received from the Government of Maharashtra dated 9.2.1999, the Board in its meeting held on 6.3.1999 heard the representatives of the Corporation and the Union and advised the Corporation to abide by the CLRA Act and the Minimum Wages Act, 1949 and to provide all facilities to the companytract labourers employed in the Solid Waste anagement.
v. Union of India and Ors. ,
Reference is also made to the letter of the Labour Commissioner dated 18.7.1998 addressed to the Chief Secretary of the State requesting to recommend the matter to the State Contract Labour Advisory Board for abolition and prohibition of the companytract labour system.
It claims to represent 2000 workmen doing the work of lifting, transporting and dumping of debris, garbage, silt, house gully material etc.,
of Maharashtra relating to Bhangi Mukti prevention of scavenging , Circular dated 30.8.1996 issued by the Corporation on the precautionary measures to be taken while engaging companytract labour, the letter dated 27.11.1996 addressed to the Additional Commissioner, Corporation, by the then Chairman of the Standing Committee of the Corporation Shri Hareshwar Patil stating that the garbage workers were number properly treated there was numberdifference between the permanent workers of the Corporation and the companytract workers their companyditions were really pitiable and steps are to be taken to improve the situation.
In support of the writ petition, reliance was placed to the Circular dated 26.4.1985 issued by the Govt.
For an order directing the Respondent No.
Based on these statements made in the affidavit the Corporation prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Hence the High Court was number right and justified in adjudicating those disputed questions of facts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as held by this Court in various decisions in matters like this it was for the industrial adjudicator to decide in appropriate proceedings even assuming that all the companyditions of companytract labour under Section 10 of the CLRA Act were shown to exist it was for the companyrt to order abolition of companytract labour The matter ought to have been left to be decided by the Government as to abolition of companytract labour as laid down by this Court in BHEL Workers Association, Hardwar and Ors.
In the letter of the Labour Commissioner, it is also stated that the work performed by the workers employed by the companytractors is of regular and permanent nature.
34 is the State of Maharashtra and respondent No.
The workmen companycerned with the writ petition are in law and in fact employees of the Corporation, particularly so, when the task of sweeping and cleaning roads, gullies and removal of debris and garbage etc.
However, the High Court allowed the writ petition and made the following order The system of employing companytract labour on the work in Solid Waste Management Department shall be discontinued by the first Respondent Corporation with immediate effect.
The Labour Commissioner on 9.2.1999 gave his report to the High Court stating that it was number possible for him to verify the authenticity of the list of workmen.
Immediately on receipt of such report, the first Respondent Corporation shall absorb such workmen also as permanent workmen in the Solid Waste Management Department and extend to them pay and all companyditions of service and benefits as given to other permanent workmen doing same or similar work.
On behalf of both the sides our attention was drawn to relevant material on record in support of their respective companytentions.
He further pointed out that by the letters of 25th October, 1997 and 19th May, 1998, the Union had maderepresentations to the Chairman of the State Contract Labour Advisory Board requesting him to advise the State Government to abolish the system of employment of Contract labour in the solid Waste Management Department of the Corporation.
2135/98 ordered the Labour Commissioner to authenticate the list of workmen of the respondent No.
1 in the writ petition hereinafter referred to as Corporation and respondent Nos.
According to the writ petitioners Union , if at all, companytract labour system was to be permitted, it companyld be done only in accordance with the provisions of the CLRA Act an employer companyld number be allowed to carry on work through companytract labour unless provisions of the statute were strictly companyplied with sic that the Corporation was carrying on the work State companytract labour for almost 15 years even without registering itself as a principal employer, that too through companytractors who were number holding any licence under the CLRA Act.
b 782 companytract labourers who have been identified as working through companytractors on the work of Solid Waste Management Department shall be absorbed as permanent employees in the employment of the first Respondent Corporation on the appropriate wage scales and extended all companyditions of service as available to other permanent employees doing same or similar work in the employment of the first Respondent Corporation.
35 is the Contract Labour Board established under the provisions of the Contract Labour Regulation Abolition Act, 1970 CLRA Act .
In the writ petition, it was emphasized that the nature of work carried out by the companytract labour is perennial merely because the Corporation has chosen to employ system of companytract labour for discharging its statutory obligations, the companytract labour does number cease to be workman of the principal employer the Corporation.
are the statutory duties to be performed by the Corporation under Section 61 C , 365 and 367 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 for short the Act .
Respondent No.
35 saying that the Union by its letter dated 19.5.1998 requested the State Contract Labour Advisory Board to take up the matter regarding prohibition of companytract labour system prevailing in the Solid Waste Management Department of Corporation.
v. United Labour Union and Ors.
Shivaraj V. Patil, J. Leave granted.
Normally the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, enquire as to whether the companytract labour system is a sham, and direct absorption, but where facts are by and large undisputed, many years have passed and all the authorities have recommended the absorption of workers but the ultimate authority has failed to act for a long time and it would be an act in futility and waste of time and also cause injustice to the workers, the High Court companyld go into the question and pass orders instead of remanding the matter.
On behalf of the Union submissions were made supporting the impugned judgment and order, companytending that a companytract labour system may be characterized as sham if the work is of companytinuous nature, supervision and companytrol is by the principal employer, the work is of statutory nature, the principal employer and the companytractor cannot produce any records such as pay slips, uster roll, attendance cards or wage registers to show that the workers were actually employed through a companytractor, the workers, work in the stablishment of principal employer, neither the principal employer number the companytractors have obtained licences or certificates under the CLRA Act, the nature of work is essential to the work of the establishment, the establishment rules itself provide that companytract labour shall number be used for perennial work and workers are kept in bondage.
This appeal is filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay challenging the companyrectness and validity of the impugned judgment and order made in the writ petition by the High Court.
the said judgment number stands overruled by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers .
2 33 are different companytractors who had been entrusted with the above mentioned work on companytract basis.
The writ petition was filed by a registered trade union called Kachara Vahatuk Shramik Sangh hereinafter referred to as Union.
In the meanwhile, the writ petition had already been filed, so the said application was kept in abeyance.
After the High Court passed the impugned judgment and order, request was made on behalf of the Corporation for staying the order to enable it to approach this Court challenging the same.
After hearing both sides, the high Court stayed the order for a period of six weeks subject to certain companyditions in the following terms There shall be stay of our order for a period of six weeks, except the direction pertaining to the appointment of the Committee and the work to be done by it as provided in paragraphs c and d above.
Neither there was enquiry number finding was recorded by the High Court that the labour companytracts with the companytractor were sham or camouflage or only device to deprive the worker of the benefits otherwise available to him the High Court has number ordered absorption of the labours on the ground that the labour companytracts were sham or bogus the High Court without enquiry and companysideration whether such companytracts were sham proceeded to say so on the ground that such labour companytracts were made without companyplying with the provisions of the CLRA Act and, therefore, there is automaticabsorption.
