Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

8. That the contractors have dispensed away with the services of hundreds of security guards/Watch and Ward Staff without following the procedure of law and have also paid much less than Minimum Wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act by Delhi Administration/Central Govt. what to talk of same pay and allowances a similar situated regular workmen under the Principal Employer the concerned workmen are entitled to. The Principal Employer and the Contractors are so much hand in gloves that the payments to the contractors have been fully made and with shock and dismay on behalf of the workmen of S.A.I., their trade union alleges that the security money which is deposited with Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Delhi Administration is also reported to have been released by the said authority and to that extent it is on record that wrong certification have been done by the Principal Employer/concerned labour enforcement authorities in which case there is want on violation of the Labour Laws on the subject".

18. A perusal of the paragraph reproduced above would reveal that the directions given by the Industrial Adjudicator or any Court for absorption of contract labour following the judgment in Air India Statutory Corporation‟s case (supra) shall hold good where such directions have been given effect to and has become final. It is not the case of the respondent No. 3/claimants that the impugned award has been implemented in their favour. It is true that the petitioner initially filed a Writ Petition (C) No. 5574/1999 limited against the issuance of recovery notice by the respondent No. 1, without impugning the award. This Court cannot ignore the fact that in the said petition, the petitioner did say that it reserves its right to challenge the award passed by the Labour Court. When such a right has been reserved, it can be inferred that the petitioner had no intention to give effect to the award of the Labour Court in favour of the claimants before the Labour Court. It is not a case of the respondent No. 3/claimants that the petitioner had not challenged the award at all. The Division Bench has granted liberty to the parties to argue the said issue before this Court while deciding main writ petition. Suffice to state that phraseology „attained finality‟ has to be read in conjunction with the subsequent words „and/or it has been implemented‟. The intention of the Supreme Court is also clarified in Para 4 where the Supreme Court has used the word „where such a direction has been given effect to and it has become final‟. It is clear that the Supreme Court intended that those cases where the orders of the Industrial Adjudicator/any other Court or the High Court have been implemented and the contract labour has been absorbed, those cases would not be re-opened. It is not one such case where the claimants before the Labour Court have been absorbed. This Court is of the view that the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India‟s case (supra) would be applicable while deciding the issue which falls for consideration in these writ petitions. The submission of Mr. Varun Prasad, Advocate is liable to be rejected.

19. Further it is noted that the claim petition filed by the respondent No. 3 proceed on a premise that the petitioner herein is the "principal employer". It is also the case of the claimants that the petitioner being a principal employer had wilfully and deliberately engaged contract labour through contractors to deny the fruits of benefit of regular workmen and thereby indulge in unfair labour practice. It was their case that in view of the prohibition by the Central Government in terms of the notification dated December 09, 1976 to engage contract labour through contractors, the renewal from time to time of the contract is illegal and unjust. Meaningfully read, the respondent No. 3 concedes to the fact that the petitioner was a "principal employer" and the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were the "contractors". Further, it is noted that it is not the case of the respondent No. 3 that the contract entered by the petitioner with respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is "sham and camouflage". I may only note that the scope of judicial review in a matter like this, has been spelt out by the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India‟s case (supra), wherein the Supreme Court has inter alia held that the Industrial Tribunal/Court will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with the various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the worker of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, then the so called contract labourer will have to be treated as the employees of the principal employer.

22. That I note that the Labour Court in the impugned award had primarily relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation‟s case (supra). The Labour Court relied upon the notification dated December 09, 1976 and which was also considered by the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation‟s case (supra) for granting relief to the claimants, which is clear from the relevant paras i.e. paras 14, 15 and 16, which are reproduced as under:

14. As noted, the appellant, to start with, was a statutory authority but pending appeal in this Court, due to change in law and in order to be in tune with open economy, it became a company registered under the Companies Act. To consider its sweep on the effect of Heavy Engineering case (1969) 1 SCC 765 on the interpretation of the phrase "appropriate Government", it would be necessary to recapitulate the Preamble, Fundamental Rights (Part III) and Directive Principles (Part IV) -- trinity setting out the conscience of the Constitution deriving from the source "We, the people", a charter to establish an egalitarian social order in which social and economic justice with dignity of person and equality of status and opportunity, are assured to every citizen in a socialist, democratic Bharat Republic.