Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd ... vs Mahesh on 3 January, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 6th OF DECEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 2477 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
SHYAMLAL YOGI S/O SHRI BHAGIRATH NATH YOGI, AGED ABOUT 49
YEARS, 66, E.W.S. DHACHA BHAWAN, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI BRIJ MOHAN GEHLOD, ADVOCATE)
AND
RANBAXY LEBORATORIES LTD. FACTORY MANAGER INDUSTRIAL
AREA, A.B. ROAD, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI GIRISH PATWARDHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY MS.
KIRTI PATWARDHAN, ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 1339 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
MAHESH SHARMA S/O SHRI GATTULAL SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 44
YEARS, OCCUPATION: NOTHING KABIR NAGAR, DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI BRIJ MOHAN GEHLOD, ADVOCATE)
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 1/3/2024
5:53:40 PM
-2-
RENBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. FACTORY MANAGER INDUSTRIAL
1.
AREA, A.B. ROAD, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
J.S.SANDHU S/O ARJUNSINGH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
2.
OCCUPATION: NIL 94, ROYAL INCLEVE,BHATINDA (PUNJAB)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI GIRISH PATWARDHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY MS.
KIRTI PATWARDHAN, ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 1342 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
MAANSINGH S/O SHRI URJANSINGH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: NOTHING BABRIYA, A.B. ROAD, DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI BRIJ MOHAN GEHLOD, ADVOCATE)
AND
RENBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. FACTORY MANAGER INDUSTRIAL
1.
AREA, A.B. ROAD, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
J.S. SANDHU S/O ARJUNSINGH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
2.
OCCUPATION: NIL 94, ROYAL INCLEVE ,BHATINDA (PUNJAB)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI GIRISH PATWARDHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE
ASSISTED BY MS. KIRTI PATWARDHAN, ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI SATISH CHANDRA BAGADIA, SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ANAND ADHIKARI, ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 2480 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
SMT. ANNUBAI W/O SHRI BHERULAL, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, REVA
BAGH, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 1/3/2024
5:53:40 PM
-3-
(BY SHRI BRIJ MOHAN GEHLOD, ADVOCATE)
AND
RANBAXY LEBORATORIES LTD. FACTORY MANAGER INDUSTRIAL
1.
AREA, A.B. ROAD, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
J.S. SANDHU S/O LATE ARJUNSINGH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
2.
OCCUPATION: NIL 94, ROYAL ENCALVE BHATINDA (PUNJAB)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI GIRISH PATWARDHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE
ASSISTED BY MS. KIRTI PATWARDHAN, ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI SATISH CHANDRA BAGADIA, SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ANAND ADHIKARI, ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 4133 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
MUKESH PRAJAPAT S/O MOOLCHAND PRAJAPAT, AGED ABOUT 42
YEARS, TRILOK NAGAR, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI BRIJ MOHAN GEHLOD, ADVOCATE)
AND
RANBAXY LEBORATORY LTD. FACTORY MANAGER INDUSTRIAL
1.
AREA, A.B. ROAD, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
J.S. SANDHU S/O ARJUNSINGH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
2.
OCCUPATION: NIL 94,ROYAL,ENCLAVE,BHATINDA (PUNJAB)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI GIRISH PATWARDHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE
ASSISTED BY MS. KIRTI PATWARDHAN, ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI SATISH CHANDRA BAGADIA, SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ANAND ADHIKARI, ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 499 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 1/3/2024
5:53:40 PM
-4-
JEETSINGH S/O LATE CHATURBHUJ BAGHEL 564, SUNCITY II, A.B.
ROAD, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI KULDEEP BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
AND
SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDIA LTD. (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS
RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.) FACTORY MANAGER INDUSTRIAL
AREA, A.B. ROAD, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI GIRISH PATWARDHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY MS.
KIRITI PATWARDHAN, ADVOCATE)
WRIT PETITION No. 1952 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
DECEASED SMT. GANGABAI THRU. LRS. MANGILAL S/O SHRI
HINDUSINGH BHATT, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, 24/1, JABRAN COLONY,
MATAJI ROAD, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI BRIJ MOHAN GEHLOD, ADVOCATE)
AND
RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED (NOW SUN PHARMACEUTICAL
1. INDUSTRIES LIMITED) FACTORY MANAGER INDUSTRIAL AREA A.B.
ROAD, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
J S SANDHU S/O ARJUNSINGH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, 94, ROYAL
2.
ENCLAVE, BHATINDA PUNJAB (PUNJAB)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI GIRISH PATWARDHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE
ASSISTED BY MS. KIRTI PATWARDHAN, ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI SATISH CHANDRA BAGADIA, SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ANAND ADHIKARI, ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 1/3/2024
5:53:40 PM
-5-
MISC. PETITION No. 1447 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD (EARLIER KNOWN AS
RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD) FACTORY MANAGER INDUSTRIAL
AREA NO. 3, AB ROAD, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI GIRISH PATWARDHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY MS.
KIRITI PATWARDHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
MAHESH S/O GATTULAL SHARMA KABIT NAGAR DEWAS (MADHYA
1.
PRADESH)
JEEVANSINGH (J.S.) SANDHU S/O SARDAR ARJANSINGH VILLAGE
2.
BUCHKALAN TEH. NATHANA DIST. BHATINDA (PUNJAB)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI BRIJ MOHAN GEHLOD, ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI SATISH CHANDRA BAGADIA, SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ANAND ADHIKARI, ADVOCATE)
MISC. PETITION No. 1768 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. ( EARLIER KNOWN AS
RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.) FACTORY MANAGER INDUSTRIAL
AREA NO.3, A.B. ROAD DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI GIRISH PATWARDHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY MS.
KIRITI PATWARDHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
ANNU BAI W/O SHRI BHERULALJI PRAJAPAT REWA BAGH DEWAS
1.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. JEEVANSINGH (J.S.) SANDHU S/O SARDAR ARJANSINGH R/O:
VILLAGE BUCHAKALAN, TEHSIL NATHANA DIST. BHATINDA
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 1/3/2024
5:53:40 PM
-6-
(PUNJAB)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI BRIJ MOHAN GEHLOD, ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI SATISH CHANDRA BAGADIA, SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ANAND ADHIKARI, ADVOCATE)
MISC. PETITION No. 2868 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS
RANBAXY LABOURATORIES LTD.) FACTORYO MANAGER INDUSTRAIL
AREA NO.3, AB ROAD DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI GIRISH PATWARDHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY MS.
KIRITI PATWARDHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
SHYAMLAL YOGI S/O LATE SHRI BHAGIRATH YOGI EWS 66, TANCHA
1.
BHAWAN DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
JEEVAN SINGH (J.S.) SANDHU S/O LATE SHRI SARDAR ARJANSINGH
2. SANDHU VILLAGE GRAM BUCHAKALAN, TEH. NATHANA DIST.
BHATINDA (PUNJAB)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI BRIJ MOHAN GEHLOD, ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI SATISH CHANDRA BAGADIA, SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ANAND ADHIKARI, ADVOCATE)
MISC. PETITION No. 2870 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS
RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD) FACTORY MANAGER INDUSTRIAL
AREA NO.3, AB ROAD, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 1/3/2024
5:53:40 PM
-7-
(BY SHRI GIRISH PATWARDHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY MS.
KIRITI PATWARDHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
MEHARBAN SINGH S/O RAJARAM RAJEEV NAGAR, ANVATPURA,
1.
DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
JEEVAN SINGH (J.S.) SANDHU S/O LATE SHRI SARDAR ARJANSINGH
2. SANDHU VILLAGE GRAM BUCHAKALAN, TEH. NATHANA DIST.
BHATINDA (PUNJAB)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI BRIJ MOHAN GEHLOD, ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI SATISH CHANDRA BAGADIA, SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ANAND ADHIKARI, ADVOCATE)
MISC. PETITION No. 2871 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS
RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.) FACTORY MANAGER INDUSTRIAL
AREA NO.3, A.B. ROAD DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI GIRISH PATWARDHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY MS.
KIRITI PATWARDHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
MUKESH PRAJAPAT S/O SHRI MULCHAND PRAJAPAT TRILOK
1.
NAGAR DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
JEEVAN SINGH (J.S.) SANDHU S/O LATE SHRI SARDAR ARJANSINGH
2. SANDHU VILLAGE GRAM BUCHAKALAN, TEH. NATHANA DIST.
BHATINDA (PUNJAB)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI BRIJ MOHAN GEHLOD, ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI SATISH CHANDRA BAGADIA, SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ANAND ADHIKARI, ADVOCATE)
MISC. PETITION No. 2946 of 2020
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 1/3/2024
5:53:40 PM
-8-
BETWEEN:-
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS
RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.) FACTORY MANAGER INDUSTRIAL
AREA, NO.3, AB ROAD, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI GIRISH PATWARDHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY MS.
KIRITI PATWARDHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
MAAN SINGH S/O URJAN SINGH BAVDIYA, AB ROAD, DEWAS
1.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
JEEVAN SINGH (J.S. ). SANDHU S/O LATE SHRI SARDAR ARJANSINGH
2. SANDHU VILLAGE BUCHAKALAN, TEH. NATHANA DIST. BHATINADA
(PUNJAB)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI BRIJ MOHAN GEHLOD, ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI SATISH CHANDRA BAGADIA, SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ANAND ADHIKARI, ADVOCATE)
MISC. PETITION No. 2993 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. (EARLIER KNOWN AS
RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.) FACTORY MANAGER INDUSTRIAL
AREA NO.3, AB ROAD, DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI GIRISH PATWARDHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY MS.
KIRITI PATWARDHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
JEET SINGH S/O LATE SHRI CHATURBHUJ BAGHEL 564, SUNCITY 2
1.
AB ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
J.S. SANDHU SATYAM BUILDING A.B. ROAD. DEWAS (MADHYA
2.
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH
Signing time: 1/3/2024
5:53:40 PM
-9-
(RESPONDENT NO.1 BY SHRI KULDEEP BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.2 BY SHRI SATISH CHANDRA BAGADIA, SENIOR
ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY SHRI ANAND ADHIKARI, ADVOCATE)
Reserved on : 6th December, 2023
Delivered on : 3rd January, 2024
These petitions having been heard and reserved for order coming
on for pronouncement this day, the court pronounced the following:
ORDER
Regard being had to the similitude in the controversy involved in the present cases, with the joint request of the parties, these petitions are finally heard and decided by this common order.
The facts of (i) W.P. No.2477 of 2015 (ii) W.P. No.1339 of 2015 (iii) 1342 of 2015 (iv) W.P. No.2480 of 2015 (v) W.P. No.4133 of 2015 (vi) W.P. No.499 of 2017 (vii) W.P. No.1952 of 2017.
The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as "the workman") has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of (i) award dated 10.07.2013, passed by the Labour Court, Dewas in Case No.155/MPIR/2006 under Sections 31(3), 61 & 62 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (in short MPIR Act); and (ii) award dated 03.11.2014 passed by the Industrial Court, Indore in Civil Appeal No.92/MPIR/2013 under Section 65 of the MPIR Act.
02. Facts of W.P. No.2477 of 2015 2.1 The workman raised a dispute under Sections 31(3), 61 & 62 of the MPIR Act that the termination dated 16.06.2005 be declared as illegal and entitled to be reinstated with back wages. The workman Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 1/3/2024 5:53:40 PM -10- submitted a statement of claim that he was engaged as Labour in the year 1991 to work in a canteen run by the then Ranbaxy Laboratory Limited (the employer) in its industrial unit situated at A.B. Road, Dewas. After working for more than six months' satisfactory period, he became entitled to be classified as 'permanent' for which he raised a dispute which is pending as Case No.149/MPIR/2005, before the Labour Court. Vide order dated 03.04.2015, the Industrial Court passed an order to pay the wages treating him as an employee, despite that the respondent / employer neither allotted the work nor paid the wages. The officers of the employer used to take work and pay wages to him. The employer used to deduct PF & ESI contributions from the wages. Since he filed a case for classification as a permanent employee, therefore, he was stopped from entering the workplace w.e.f. 16.06.2005 which amounts to illegal retrenchment because he was neither paid retrenchment compensation nor show-cause notice was issued, hence, the same be declared as illegal and direction be given to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages.
2.2. The employer appeared and filed a reply stating that they engaged Shri J.S. Sandhu (Contractor) to run the canteen. The workman was never employed by the employer, hence, there is no employee-employer relation between them and the claim of the petitioner be dismissed.
2.3 The learned Labour Court framed five issues for adjudication. The workman examined himself and in rebuttal, the employer examined Shri Giriraj Singh Maurya as P.W-1. The respondent Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 1/3/2024 5:53:40 PM -11- produced license No.46292 dated 28.09.2002 issued in the name of J.S. Sandhu under the Contract Labour Regulation & Abolition Act, 1970.
2.3. After appreciating the evidence, the learned Labour Court answered issue No.1 that there was no employee-employer relation between the workman and employer / Ranbaxy Laboratories. The contractor is the necessary party and without pleading with him as one of the respondents, the claim is not maintainable. The Labour Court further held that the workman was terminated by J.S. Sandhu without giving any retrenchment compensation, hence, the retrenchment is illegal as the petitioner worked for more than 240 days. Since the contract of J.S. Sandhu is not in existence, therefore, no direction can be given for reinstatement of the workman, hence awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/- in lieu of the reinstatement, payable by Contractor - J.S. Sandhu.
2.4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award dated 10.07.2013, neither the employer / Ranbaxy Laboratories nor Mr. J.S. Sandhu preferred any appeal before the Industrial Court. The workman preferred an appeal challenging the finding on the issue that there was no employee-employer relation between the workman and employer and denial of reinstatement and back wages. 2.5. Vide order dated 03.11.2014, the Industrial Court affirmed the award on all issues but enhanced the amount of compensation to the extent of Rs.10,000/- per completed year of service. Against the aforesaid order, again neither employer Ranbaxy Laboratories nor Contractor - J.S. Sandhu has filed any petition before this Court.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 1/3/2024 5:53:40 PM -12-2.5. The workman has filed the present petition because the learned Labour Court as well as the learned Industrial Court both have erred in law and fact by holding that there was no employee- employer between the petitioner and respondent and the petitioner was an employee of J.S. Sandhu.
03. Shri Brij Mohan Gehlod, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the workman was engaged in the year 1991 and at that time, J.S. Sandhu did not have a canteen contract, hence, the workman was not appointed by him. It is mandatory under the Factories Act, 1948 that every factory should have a canteen. Earlier respondent / Company used to maintain the canteen, hence, engaged the workman. Later on, even if the contractor was appointed to run the canteen the workman was directed to work under the contractor. It is further submitted that during the entire service, the employer used to deduct PF as well as ESI contribution from his salary, and the amount was deposited in the employer's code which has not been considered by the Labour Court as well as Industrial Court. 3.1. It is further submitted that Mr. J.S. Sandhu appeared as D.W- 2 and admitted that he worked as a contractor from 2002 for 2 - 3 years because, before that, he was in the Indian Army. He has also admitted that when he took the contract, he did not appoint any employee, therefore, neither the employer / Company nor the contractor have proved that the workman was appointed by the contractor. Only Ex-D/16 was filed, in which the contract period was from 01.04.2005 to 30.09.2005. The application for impleading the contractor was made, but the learned Labour Court rejected the same.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 1/3/2024 5:53:40 PM -13-Therefore, in absence of any J.S. Sandhu (contractor) as respondent, the Court has wrongly recorded the finding that the petitioner was an employee of the contractor.
3.2. It is further submitted that in the case filed by the workman seeking classification of permanent status, in which now the Industrial Court has given the finding in his favour that there was an employee-employer relation between the workman and employer / Company and not with the contractor Sandhu and direction has been given to classify them. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon several judgments delivered in the cases of Food Corporation of India Workers' Union v/s Food Corporation of India (Special Civil Application No.4667 of 1987), Mishra Dhatu Nigam Limited, etc. etc. v/s M. Venkataiah & Others etc. etc. reported in 2003 (6) Supreme 187, The Saraspur Mills Corporation Limited v/s Ramanlal Chimanlal & Others reported in (1974) 3 SCC 66, Shankar Mukherjee & Others v/s Union of India (UOI) & Others reported in (1990) Sup SCC 668, Parimal Chandra Raha & Others v/s Life Insurance Corporation of India & Others (Civil Appeal No.1744 of 1992), Sudarshan Rajpoot v/s Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation reported in (2015) 2 SCC 317, Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited & Another v/s Shramik Sena & Others reported in 1999 AIR SC 2577, Deepali Gundu Surwase v/s Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D. ED.) & Others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 and M/s Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v/s State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (Civil Appeals No.2459 - 2461 of 1999).
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 1/3/2024 5:53:40 PM -14-04. Shri Kuldeep Bhargava, learned counsel for one of the workman in W.P. No.499 of 2017 has borrowed the similar arguments as advanced by Shri Gehlod and in addition placed reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited & Others v/s National Union Waterfront Workers & Others reported in (2001) 7 SCC 1.
05. Percontra, Shri Girish Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the employer / Company refuted that the learned Labour Court as well as Industrial Court both have taken a concurrent view and the same is not liable to be interfered in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The workman failed to prove that he was appointed by the employer / Company. The employer never appointed any employee in the canteen as there was no canteen division in its establishment. The canteen used to be run by the contractor and the contractor appointed its worker. The petitioner did not work for 240 days. The muster roll was produced prior to 16.06.2005, in which the name of the workman was not there, hence, the Labour Court rightly held that there was no employee-employer relation between them. In support of his contention, learned senior counsel placed reliance upon several judgments delivered in the cases of Balwant Rai Saluja v/s Air India Limited reported in (2014) 9 SCC 407, Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union v/s India Oil Corporation & Others reported in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 593, Canteen Majdoor Sabha v/s Metallurgical & Engineering Consultants (India) Limited & Others reported in (2007) 2 SCC 758, Oshiar Prasad & Others v/s The Employers in Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 1/3/2024 5:53:40 PM -15- relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of BCCL reported in (2015) 4 SCC 71, Kirloskar Brothers Limited v/s Ramcharan & Others (Civil Appeal Nos.8466 - 8447 of 2022) and M/s Atofina Catalyst (India) Limited & Another v/s Yadav Prasad reported in 2010 M.P.L.S.R. 169 (DB).
06. Shri S C Bagadia, learned Senior Counsel appearing for contractor - J.S. Sandhu argued that the concurrent findings recorded by the Labour Court and Industrial Court are normally liable to be disturbed. There is a difference between control and appointment. The employer / Company might have control over the contractor but they have no direct control over the employees of the contractor. Since the contract did not survive, therefore, the Labour Court rightly directed for payment of compensation in favour of the workman. Hence, no interference is liable to be called for and the petition be dismissed. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon a couple of judgments delivered in the cases of Hari Shankar Sharma & Others v/s Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corporation & Others reported in (2002) 1 SCC 337 and Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union & Others v/s India Oil Corporation Limited & Others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 51.
07. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
08. The workman came with a specific plea that he was appointed as Labour in the Canteen Department in the year 1991, he worked more than 240 days and was being paid wages by the employer / Company. The employer / Company came with a specific plea in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 1/3/2024 5:53:40 PM -16- written statement raising the preliminary objection that contractor - J.S. Sandhu is the necessary party as the contract of the canteen was given to him. There was no employee-employer relation between the petitioner and the employer / Company.
09. The employer / Company examined Giriraj Singh Maurya, who was working as a Senior Executive HR in the Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited. In cross-examination, he admitted that he has been working for 25 years and looking after the works related to law. He admitted that in the factory, the facility of the canteen has been provided and it is the liability of the Company to maintain the canteen apart from the toilet, washroom, crush, etc. In cross- examination, he got exhibited the contract agreement dated 01.05.2005 as Ex-D/5 which is neither notarized nor registered, hence, such an agreement cannot be considered in this case.
10. Shri J.S. Sandhu was also examined as D.W-2 and in cross- examination, he also admitted that he has been working as a contractor since 2002 but Ex-D/2 is neither notarized nor registered. He also admitted that he did not produce any record pertaining to payment of wages, for which he has no explanation. He admitted that the workman worked for more than 240 days.
11. In the pay slips of the workman, there used to be deductions of PF as well as ESI contribution in which the code of employer / Company is mentioned. The contractor failed to produce any of the documents to show that he appointed the workman and there were employee-employer relations between them. Admittedly, when the petitioner was engaged in the year 1991, Shri J.S. Sandhu did not Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 1/3/2024 5:53:40 PM -17- have the contract to run the canteen. The employer / Company has not produced any document to show that before the contract of Shri J.S. Sandhu, which contractor appointed the petitioner. Therefore, the Labour Court wrongly recorded the finding that there was an employee-employer relationship between the workman and contractor Sandhu.
12. The learned Labour Court did not consider the entire evidence that came on record and recorded perverse findings. The respondent / Company and contractor never challenged the order of the Labour Court and Industrial Court on the ground that the petitioner did not complete 240 days. Therefore, the said findings have attained the finality.
13. The Apex Court in the case Oshiar Prasad (supra) has held that it is a settled principle of law that absorption and regularization in the service can be claimed or / and granted only when the contract of employment subsists and is in force. But it has been held above in this case that the petitioner was never the employee of the contractor, therefore, there is no question of reinstatement in the services of a contractor. Hence, this judgment is of no help to the respondent / Company.
14. In the case of Balwant Rai Saluja (supra), the Apex Court has held that Air India exercises control that is in the nature of supervision, therefore, the employee of the contractor cannot be treated as the employee of Air India Corporation. In the said case, admittedly, the employees were appointed by the contractor, and they were claiming that they are deemed to be employees of Air India by Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 1/3/2024 5:53:40 PM -18- virtue of provisions of the Contract Labour & Abolition Act. However, in the present case, the workman never admitted that they were appointed by the canteen contractor, and by the fiction of law they became the employee of the respondent. This judgment is also of no help to the employer / company.
15. Likewise, in the case of Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union (supra) also there was an admitted position that the workmen were working in a canteen of the Indian Oil Corporation through a contractor. However, in the present case, the respondent / Company as well as contractor both have failed to prove that the petitioner was appointed by the contractor. This judgment, relied on by Shri Patwardhan, learned Senior Counsel is distinguishable on fact and is of no help to the respondent / Company.
16. In the case of Kirloskar Brothers Limited (supra), the Apex Court has held that in absence of any notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour & Abolition Act and in absence of any allegation and / or finding that the contract was sham and camouflage, the High Court and Industrial Court have committed serious error in reinstating the contesting respondents and directing the appellant principal employer to absolve them as regular employee. In this case, also, the absorption was sought by way of implication provided for automatic absorption of contract labour by issuing a notification by proper Government under Section 10(i) of the Contract Labour & Abolition Act. However, in the present case, there is no such admission or evidence that the petitioner was appointed by the contractor. This judgment is also of no help to the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 1/3/2024 5:53:40 PM -19- respondent / Company as the same is distinguishable on fact.
17. In the case of Hari Shankar Sharma (supra) relied on Shri Bagadia, learned Senior Counsel for the contractor - J.S. Sandhu, the Apex Court has declined to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal based on evidence that the employees of the canteen were not the employee of respondent / Establishment. Facts of (i) M.P. Nos.1447 of 2020, (ii) M.P. 1768 of 2020, (iii) M.P. 2868 of 2020, (iv) M.P. 2870 of 2020, (v) M.P. 2871 of 2020,
(vi) M.P. 2946 of 2020 & 2993 of 2020
18. The workman also approached the Court seeking classification as a permanent employee under Sections 31(3), 61 & 62 of the MPIR Act on the ground that he has been working as a labour in the canteen since 1991. The then employer, Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited filed a written statement on 13.06.2005 denying their claim that they were working under the contractor, hence, they cannot seek compliance of provisions of the Contract Labour & Abolition Act. The contractor has also filed a reply, thereafter, the evidence was recorded by both the parties and vide award dated 13.09.2019, the Labour Court dismissed their claim by holding that the petitioner is the employee of the contractor on whom the provisions of the MPIR Act do not apply. The workman has also failed to prove that in the canteen, the post of labour is vacant and sanctioned and worked for more than six months.
19. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award, an appeal under Section 65 of the MPIR Act was filed before the Industrial Court. Vide award dated 05.02.2020, the Industrial Court has set aside the Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 1/3/2024 5:53:40 PM -20- award and directed the employer to classify him as a permanent employee after six months from the date of appointment and pay them all the wages and benefits two years before 13.06.2005 till the date of termination, hence, these petitions are before this Court by the employer.
20 . Learned counsel for the parties advanced the same arguments as discussed above. After examining those submissions, it has been held in the aforesaid paragraphs that the workman was appointed by the employer and not by the contractor. In these cases also the learned Industrial Court has given the same reasoning and rightly set aside the order of the learned Labour Court. The Industrial Court rightly found that the workman was appointed by the employer / Company in the Canteen Department and he was secured under the Employee State Insurance Scheme. The employer / Company used to deduct the PF but the status of permanent employee was not given.
20. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out in the matter and since the termination of the workmen has already been set aside, therefore, they are liable to be reinstated and also liable to be classified as permanent employees.
21. With the aforesaid, W.P. Nos.2477 of 2015, 1339 of 2015, 1342 of 2015, 2480 of 2015, 4133 of 2015, 499 of 2017 & 1952 of 2017 stand allowed.
22. Since this Court has allowed the petitions filed by the workmen, therefore, the writ petitions filed by Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited i.e. M.P. Nos.1447 of 2020, 1768 of 2020, 2868 of 2020, 2870 of 2020, 2871 of 2020, 2946 of 2020 & 2993 of 2020 stand Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 1/3/2024 5:53:40 PM -21- dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be kept in the connected petitions also.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Ravi Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVI PRAKASH Signing time: 1/3/2024 5:53:40 PM