Jharkhand High Court
Workmen Umashankar Singh And Forty Four ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court And ... on 13 July, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008(56)BLJR346, [2007(4)JCR115(JHR)], 2008 LAB. I. C. (NOC) 91 (JHAR.) = 2007 (3) AIR JHAR R 604, 2007 (3) AIR JHAR R 604, (2007) 115 FACLR 495, (2007) 4 JCR 115 (JHA), (2007) 3 JLJR 653
Author: Ramesh Kumar Merathia
Bench: Ramesh Kumar Merathia
JUDGMENT Ramesh Kumar Merathia, J.
Page 0346
1. The workmen have challenged the award dated 29.5.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 14 of 1994. They have further prayed for a direction on the Management of Indian Explosive Limited, Gomia (respondent No. 2) to regularise their services.
Page 0347
2. By notification of the Government of Bihar dated 28.2.1994, the following dispute was referred for adjudication:
Whether the 45 night guards as mentioned in Annexure A of I.C.I. India Ltd., Gomia are workmen?. If so whether they should be made permanent by the management?. If so from which date?
3. Mr. S.N. Das, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted as follows:
The case of 45 night guards is that they were getting only Rs. 675/-per month as wages by the management through Shri Ishwar Nath Singh, an employee of the Company, who was also the Secretary of the Indian Explosive Workers Union recognized by the management, to 13 night guards in the workers colony and rest 32 night guards were paid by different officers of the Company for different areas of the colony. They were getting other benefits also. They have been working for a long time pursuant to the settlement dated 26.5.1969 (Ext. A). They were actually the employees of the Company and their engagement through the officers was merely a camouflage.
4. Mr. A. Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the management, submitted as follows. The case of the management was that only fixed financial assistance was given to its employees residing in the colony on their request for engagement of night guards but they were not appointed by it. The wages were not paid by the management and it had no control over their services. The management was not providing any facility to them and there is no privity of contract between it and the night guards. They were not the workmen of the management. The management has no statutory duty to provide or engage the night guards for its employees residing in the colony. The award was passed after considering the materials on record and there is no perversity or illegality in it and, therefore, it cannot be interfered with. Further the claim of regularisation of the night guards cannot be accepted now in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secy. State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi .
5. It will be useful to reproduce Demand No. 24 of the Memorandum of Settlement between the management and the Union arrived at, in course of the conciliation proceedings hold by the Commissioner of Labour and Conciliation Officer, Bihar at Patna on 26.5.1969:
DEMAND SETTLEMENT
24. Cases of theft in the colonies are always on the increase. No body feels secure and those on duty in the factory have to remain worried all along. Adequate number of Security Guards be deputed throughout the Colonies.
24. It was agreed that under the aegis of the Union, a Vigilance Committee would be formed by the residents of the housing areas and the Management will give financial assistance in the matter of appointment of four Chowkidars by the Committee. It was agreed that Chowkidars' remuneration will be Rs.
Page 0348
6. After considering the materials and the evidences brought on the record by the parties, the tribunal found that as per the said settlement, a Vigilance Committee was to be formed by the residents of the housing areas and the management was to give financial assistance for payment of wages to the night guards. It further found that the management had no control on the services of the night guards like appointment, assigning duty, granting leave and payment of salary etc. It also found that the management has no statutory obligation to engage night guards in the residential colony. It lastly found that there was no relationship of the master and servant between the management and the night guards and they were not the workmen of the Company as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, they are not entitled to any relief whatsoever claimed by them.
7. I have carefully gone through the materials on record. The scope of interference with the award under writ jurisdiction is limited. The tribunal has considered the materials on record and has reached to the aforesaid findings correctly. It cannot be said that the said findings are perverse or illegal. In view of such findings, it cannot be accepted that the engagement of the night guards was a camouflage.
8. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.