Telangana High Court
M/S.Power Grid Corporation Of ... vs A.B.Singh, S/O.Tawaria, on 25 March, 2022
Author: Satish Chandra Sharma
Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI
WRIT APPEAL No.1738 of 2013
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma) The present writ appeal is arising out of an order, dated 16.07.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7108 of 2006 and batch.
The facts of the case reveal that the respondent No.1/workman was working with M/s.Power Grid Corporation of India, appellant herein, in Khammam and he came up before the Labour Court by filing a petition under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 questioning the alleged termination dated 01.12.1995. It was stated by him before the Labour Court that he was appointed as Security Guard in 1991 and was terminated orally with effect from 01.12.1995 and a prayer was made for quashment of the termination, which was passed allegedly in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The evidence produced by the workman has established that he was in continuous service from 1991-1995. The present appellant, M/s.Power Grid Corporation of India took a plea that there is no employer and employee relationship between the appellant and the respondent No.1/workman and in fact, M/s.Private Eye Security Services has supplied the contract labour to M/s.Power Grid Corporation of India. Before the Labour 2 Court, on behalf of workmen, W.W.1 and W.W.2 were examined and Ex.W.1 was marked and on behalf of the appellant/M/s.Power Grid Corporation of India, M.W.1 was examined and Exs.M.1 to M.13 were marked and the Labour Court has arrived at a conclusion that the workmen were continuously worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding the date of discontinuation and no notice was issued to workmen and no retrenchment compensation was paid to them and therefore, the termination is in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court has passed the Award directing reinstatement of the workmen with continuity of services, but without backwages. The Labour Court has also held that the so called contractor was not having certificate of registration as required under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, at the time the workmen were engaged.
It is pertinent to note that in some of the connected writ petitions, a reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thereafter, the Award was passed but the fact remains that the issue was relating to workmen working with M/s.Power Grid Corporation of India right from 1991 to 1995 and their services were put to an end orally.
3
Learned counsel for the appellant/M/s.Power Grid Corporation of India has argued before this Court that the State Government was not having the power to make a reference to the Labour Court (as the matter has been adjudicated based upon reference in some of the cases) and therefore, the Award passed by the Labour Court is bad in law. The learned Single Judge placing reliance upon the Judgment delivered in the case of Management of Power Grid Corporation of India Limited v. The Presiding Officer1 and Steel Authority of India v. National Union Waterfront Workers2, has held that the State Government was the appropriate authority by virtue of the Notification No.S.O.556(E), dated 03.07.1998. The Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has empowered the State Government also to exercise powers under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of Central Public Sector Undertakings and their subsidiaries, Corporations and Autonomous Bodies mentioned in the Schedule and M/s.Power Grid Corporation of India is at Serial No.103 of the Schedule and therefore, in those cases where references were made by the State Government, it was a valid reference made by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the State Government was the proper Government for referring the dispute in 1 137 (2007) DLT 419 2 (2001) 7 SCC 1 4 exercise of powers conferred under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Learned counsel for the appellant/M/s.Power Grid Corporation of India has vehemently argued before this Court that the workman in the present appeal and other identically placed workmen were not at all engaged by M/s.Power Grid Corporation of India and they were engaged through the contractor. The learned Single Judge has held that the contractor was not having a licence under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and by stretch of imagination, M/s.Power Grid Corporation of India could have engaged the workmen through a contractor in absence of fulfilment of Sections 7, 9 and 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The statutory provisions as contained in Sections 7, 9 and 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 read as under:-
"7. Registration of certain establishments:- (1) Every principal employer of an establishment to which this Act applies shall, within such period as the appropriate government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix in this behalf with respect to establishment generally or with respect to any class of them, make an application to the registering officer in the prescribed manner for registration of the establishment.
Provided that the registering officer may entertain any such application for registration after expiry of the period fixed in this behalf, if the registering officer is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time.5
(2) If the application for registration is complete in all respects, the registering officer shall register the establishment and issue to the principal employer of the establishment a certificate of registration containing such particulars as may be prescribed.
9. Effect of Non-registration:- No principal employer of an establishment, to which this Act applies, shall-
(a) in the case of an establishment required to be registered under Section 7, but which has not been registered within the time fixed for the purpose under that section;
(b) in the case of an establishment the registration in respect of which has been revoked under section 8, employ contract labour in the establishment after the expiry of the period referred to in clause (a) or after the revocation of registration referred to in clause (b), as the case may be.
12. Licensing of Contractors:- (1) With effect from such date as the appropriate government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint no contractor to whom this Act applies, shall undertake or execute any work through contract labour except under and in accordance with a licence issued in that behalf by the licensing officer."
Undisputedly, the aforesaid provision of law makes it very clear that the principal employer cannot employ contract labour in absence of registration of Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The appellant/M/s.Power Grid Corporation of India did not obtain licence from the Central Government to get the workmen through contractor nor the contractor was having a licence obtained from the Central Government. M/s.Power Grid Corporation of India was certainly having a licence for engaging contract labour of the State 6 Government only in respect of construction activities but not for engaging security personnel and in those circumstances, the learned Single Judge has held that the findings arrived at by the Labour Court that the engagement of workers was illegal does not warrant any interference. In the considered opinion of this Court, the findings arrived at by the Labour Court and by the learned Single Judge on this issue do not warrant any interference.
The learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the Judgment delivered in the case of Food Corporation of India Workers' Union v. Food Corporation of India (Judgment dated 05.12.1989 passed in Special Civil Application No.4567 of 1987) and Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Suresh3. In the considered opinion of this Court, keeping in view the aforesaid Judgment, the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference.
In the present case, the witnesses examined on behalf of the appellant have stated that the nature of work done by the workmen was perennial in nature as they were working as Security Guards continuously for 12 months and the said work can never be termed as seasonal work or casual work and keeping in view Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the Andhra Pradesh State Amendment, M/s.Power Grid Corporation of 3 1992 (2) SLR 1 7 India was certainly not empowered to engage workers through contractor (See Pola Satyanarayana v Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour4, Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union5 and M.Anasuya v. Nuclear Fuel Complex6).
In the present case, the Award was passed by the Labour Court, which is based upon the evidence on record makes it very clear that the workmen were doing job, which is perennial in nature and in the considered opinion of this court, only to ensure that the workmen do not claim continuation at a later stage, the contract of engaging them through a contractor was executed, which is certainly a camouflage.
In the present case and other connected matters, the Awards have been passed on 26.02.2001 and 13.09.2005 and the learned Single Judge decided the writ petitions upholding the Award and we are now in the year 2022. The services of the workman in the present appeal and in other connected matters were put to an end without paying any retrenchment compensation and the workmen have worked more than 240 days in 12 calendar months and therefore, the question of interference with the Award passed by the Labour Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case does not arise in the writ appeal as well as the question of interference with 4 2000 (4) ALT 274 5 1997 SCC (L&S) 1344 6 2000 (6) ALT 598 8 the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not arise and the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Resultantly, the writ appeal is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ _______________________ ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J 25.03.2022 JSU/PLN