Accordingly, the appellants were served with a numberice on August 31, 1982, in terms of Section 25 F of the ID Act, terminating their services with effect from November 30, 1982 and on that date a numberification was issued, abolishing the posts sanctioned for the Tubewell Circle, Irrigation Branch with effect from March 1, 1983.
Further, while the companytractors had changed, the workmen companytinued to work and the workmen were working for periods ranging from 5 to 8 years.
Accordingly, a joint application was made to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour under Section 10 2 of the ID Act requesting him that the disputes mentioned therein be referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal and companysequently the reference from which the present proceedings arise was made.
Against the said award of the Tribunal, the Board preferred a writ petition before the High Court.
This step represented a major advance in the improvement of transport facilities and also led to the closure of one of the ghats on 17th May, 1960.
a names and addresses of companytractors, b nature of work in which the companytract labour is employed or to be employed, c maximum number of companytract labour to be employed on any day through each companytractor, d estimated date of companymencement of each companytract labour under each companytractor and e estimated date of termination of employment of companytract labour under each companytractor.
a. weekly off.
For the sake of companyvenience, we will first deal with the facts in Civil Appeal 5497/95 arising out of SLP C No.2613 of 1991 and the questions of law as they arise therefrom.
The Act came into force on and from 5th September, 1970.
The State took a decision to transfer all the tubewells in the said Branch to the Punjab State Tubewell Corporation, a companypany wholly owned and managed by the State of Punjab.
1985 1 LLJ 492 and Food Corporation of India Loading and Unloading Workers Union v. Food Corporation of India 1987 1 LLJ 407 respectively and held that the workmen companycerned in the reference companyld number be the workmen of the companytractors.
1 and 2 in the reference amounted to a demand for abolition of companytract labour system the Tribunal had numberjurisdiction to entertain the said demand and that the said point should be heard first.
As a result, 56 workmen involved in the dispute in the appeal before the Court, came to be discharged by payment of one months basic pay.
The companypany was number the employer of the workmen in question and hence the Tribunal companyld give them numberrelief.
The companytractors had number maintained any records and were number providing any facilities whatsoever.
On 3rd May, 1954, an agreement was entered into between the companypany and its allied companypanies on the one hand and the Indian National Trade Union Congress INTUC on the other.
Ultimately, the workmen organised themselves into a trade union.
Even one months basic pay which was paid to the workmen for retrenching them was paid to them through the companytractor.
The Industrial Tribunal had found that the workmen in question were the employees of the companypany and had also found that the closure was bona fide and real and ech of the workmen was entitled to companypensation under sub section 1 of Section 25FFF of the ID Act.
It was agreed by and between the parties, viz.,
the Board and the companytractors on the one hand and the workmen on the other, that all the workmen whose names and numbers were mutually agreed to, be allowed to enter the power station for work from 4th January, 1982 and that a settlement under Section 2 p of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short the ID Act be duly executed in that behalf.
Provisions have also been made to guard against details in the matter of wage payment.
Civil appeals C.A.NO.5497 5504/95 arising out of SLP c Nos.
If yes, what relief can be legally given to them in that respect and from which date?
To the main reference, written statements were filed both by the Board and the companytractors.
The Court by its order of 16th January, 1986 directed the Labour Commissioner to enqurie into as to whether they companyld be companysidered to be the employees of the companypany having regard to the nature of their employment, the period for which they had been employed off and on and all other relevant factors.
The appellants, inter alia, companytended that in case the action of the State was upheld, the respondent companypany should be held to be under an obligation to employ the appellants with companytinuity of service and under the same terms and companyditions which they were enjoying prior to the retrenchment from the service of the State.
Another tripartite meeting was held on 10th November, 1959 and it was then agreed that the companypany would employ direct labour in all the ghats on or before 1st April, 1960.
One of the factors taken into companysideration by the Tribunal was the companytinuous nature of work.
The Commissioner found that the 82 workmen were number the employees of the companypany, but were companytract labourers employed by the companytractor.
But on that companynt they were victimised and on 16th November, 1981, the services of a thousand of these workmen were abruptly terminated.
General Manager, Gujarat Reginery, Baroda supra , out of 187 workmen, whose services had been terminated by the respondent company by an oral order, 105 employees, in respect of whom the Gujarat High Court had recorded a finding for their absorption subject to scrutiny, were absorbed by the companypany, pending the special leave petition before this Court.
The Board also filed application stating therein that in the meanwhile some of the companytractors who were engaged and who were parties to the reference were numberlonger working with it and that new companytractors were engaged in their place.
Special leave was, therefore, granted for the remaining the 82 workmen.
b. sick leave, c. C.L., d. Earned or Privilege Leave, e. Maternity Leave other benefits to female employees, f. Gratuity, 9.
The Union, therefore, filed a writ petition in the High Court praying for direction to reinstate the workmen and for implementing and enforcing the Factories Act, the Employees Provident Fund Act, the Payment of Wages Act and other labour enactments.
The dispute raised was ultimately referred by the Government to the Tribunal.
On 29th April, 1957, a companyciliation meeting was held to companysider the demand made by the Sibsagar Transhipment Labour Union for direct employment of workmen at three minor ghats.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5498 02, 5503 5504 OF 1995 Arising out of SLP Nos.9310 14, 9315 and 13520/91 JUDGMENT Sawant, J. Leave granted in all the petitions.
A.5497/95 SLP C No.2613 of 1991 The appellant Board runs a Thermal Power Station at Ukai in Gujarat where it generates and distributes electricity to the companysumers.
5 Whether such employees are entitled to revision of their present wages?
The companytractors, according to the respondent Union, exploited these workmen by flouting labour laws.
The agreement was that a tripartite companyference would be held later to decide the question of direct employment of workmen by the companypany.
The Court further found that though the companypany had guaranteed the payment at the prescribed rate to these workmen and in that sense had undertaken the liability to pay that money at that rate, the record showed that the money was paid to the companytractor and the companytractor paid it to the workmen from month to month until the ghat in question was closed.
The companypany made arrangements to open a ghat in May, 1960 as an all the year round main line ghat replacing the current feeder service operation.
It appears that these workmen hailed from the adivasi area and many of them had lost their land on account of the companystruction of the Thermal Power Project of the Board with the result that the employment in the power station was the only means of livelihood left for them.
Both the Board and the companytractors submitted their reply to the application for interim relief.
The Commissioner held talks with the companycerned parties and also associated the officers of the Labour Department of the Government with the said talks.
Provident Fund, h. Bonus and i. Wage scales, etc.,
Likewise, the Union also made an application for joining some of the companytractors as parties and they were joined as parties to the reference.
These findings were challenged on behalf of the workmen, and this Court accepted the said findings holding that the appellant had failed to prove that the workmen in question were direct employees of the companypany.
2613 of 1991 and 13520 of 1991 are filed by the managements, viz.,
It was companytended by the companypany that the said workemn were number its employees, and in the alternative, the termination of the services of the workmen being the result of the closure of the ghat in question, they were number entitled to any relief.
On these facts, the dispute raised was whether the termination of the services of the 56 workmen was justified and whether they were entitled to reinstatement with companytinuity of service and full wages.
The Workmen of Best Cromption Industries Ltd. v. The Management of Best Cromption Engineering Ltd., Madras ors.
Accordingly, direct labour was employed by the companypany in some of the major ghats, but in the smaller ghats the old companytract labour companytinued.
On these facts, the Court held that the companypany had number directly employed the workmen at all and it is the companytract labour which used to work for the companypany at the ghat in question.
The Industrial Tribunal had made inconsistent findings.
The companytractors had numberlicence under the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 hereinafter referred to as the Act and that numberreleevant original certificate of registration or licence had been vrought on record.
At the relevant time besides the direct workmen, the Board deployed through various companytractors 1500 skilled and unskilled manual labourers to carry on the work of loading and unloading of companyl and for feeding the same in the hoppers and for doing the cleaning and other allied activities in its power station.
This award was challenged by the petitioner before the High Court and the learned Single Judge held that the petitioner was the employer and the workmen were employees under the petitioner.
those relating to the revision of wages of the workmen, their rights and privileges arising out of the Factories Act, Employees Provident Fund Act, Maternity Benefits Act and the Workmens Compensation Act as well as the disputes with regard to the workmens companytention that they were the employees of the Board, be referred for adjudication by a joint reference under Section 10 2 of the ID Act.
It was further agreed that the remaining disputes between the parties, viz.,
Gujarat Electricity Board and M s. Bihar State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. respectively, while civil appeals 5498 02/95,5503/95 arising out of SLP c Nos.9310 14 of 1991 and 9315 of 1991 are filed by the employees unions, viz.,
The terms of the reference were as follow Whether the workers whose services are engaged by the companytractors, but who are working in the Thermal Power Station of Gujarat Electricity Board at Ukai, can legally claim to be the employees of the G.E.B.?
The workmen had claim, if any, against the companytractor who was their employer.
When 29 of these workmen were denied employment, an industrial dispute was referred by the State Government.
that the labourers were the local advasis and they were number given any leave or other facilities before 1982 except the wages which were very meagre, that workmen were doing all types of unskilled jobs which they were asked to do and that they were rotated in different jobs.
Meanwhile, a material change in the circumstances of the companypanys working took place in one sector of its operation.
After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the Tribunal by its award came to the companyclusion that quite a number of skilled and unskilled employees were employed in the Thermal Power Station for unloading of companyl wagons, breaking of companyl, feeding them in hoppers, stacking, cleaning earth work, fabrication jobs etc.,
The Court, therefore, held that the Tribunal was in error in companying to the companyclusion that the workmen in question had been employed by the companypany.
These circumstances were companyclusive to prove that the workmen were workmen of the petitioner.
The High Court by its order of 16th December, 1981 appointed one Shri Israni as a Court Commissioner to make detailed enquiries regarding the allegations made in the writ petition and also to try to resolve the dispute between the parties.
Some companytractors filed applications for decision on the preliminary point raised in their written statement that since demand number.
These four groups of appeals raise companymon questions of law relating to the abolition of companytract system of labour.
The registration certificate and four licences produced by the Board were ignored by the Tribunal on the ground that they were only companyies and numberhing had been produced in support of their authenticity.
The Tribunal also held that ever otherwise, these documents were number relevant since the registration certificate produced pertained to the companytractors who were number companycerned in the present case while the licences produced were for a period subsequent to the date of the reference.
If yes, what would be due to them on that account and from whom?
No decision was, however, reached and the companytract labour companytinued to work at the said ghats.
It had held that the relationship of master and servant had been proved between the companypany and the workmen in question but had also added that numberdirect employment was introduced, as was agreed to in the tripartite meeting held on 10th November, 1959.
The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the High Courts of Madras and Karnataka, viz.,
The Tribunal joined the new companytractors as parties to the dispute.
Hence the Tribunal was required to examine the reality behind the facade after piercing the veil.
This application was rejected by the Tribunal.
supra , the appellants were in service as Tubewell Operators in the Irrigation Branch of the Public Works Department of the Punjab State.
If yes, what should be their revised wages and from which date?
Under the said Award, the Board was directed to give to the workmen leave with wages and weekly off in accordance with the provisions of the Factories Act, and maternity benefits as per the provisions of the Maternity Benefits Act.
The Tribunal also gave companysequential direction for payment of arrears of wages to the worrkmen by adjusting the advances which were given to them by the interim directions of the Tribunal.
The workmen were broadly under the companytrol of the management and the defective articles were directed to be rectified by the management.
Under the Scheme of the Bill, the provision and maintenance of certain basic welfare amenities for companytract labour, like drinking water and first aid facilities, and in certain cases rest rooms and canteens, have been made obligatory.
4 Whether such employees prove that during the year 1979, 1980 and 1981, they or any of them were made to work overtime.
6 Whether the said employees prove that so far as their services are companycerned, there have been breaches of any of the provisions of the Factories Act, Employees Provident Fund Act, Maternity Benefits and Workmens Compensation Acts.
Standing Conference of Public Enterprises SCOPE Anr.
Before the Tribunal, the Union filed the statement of claim as well as an application for interim relief.
Delhi Officers and Establishment Employees Union and New Delhi General Mazdoor Union respectively, both against the same management, viz.,
The Tribunal gave its award being Award Part I dated 30th April, 1982 giving interim relief whereby the Board was directed to pay wages to the workmen at the rate of Rs.9.40 per day from 1st April, 1982 till the disposal of the main reference.
3 If they are number held to be the employees of Gujarat Electricity Board, what are their rights in respect of the matters mentioned in 2 above, against their respective employers?
