Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22. It is contended that the petitioners have specifically submitted in their evidences that they were merely hiring the workers from outsourcing agencies hence there is no question of regularization of the respondent no. 1 to 3 and other contracted workers.

23. It is submitted that the respondent nos. 1 to 3 were appointed to hand- hold the workers of petitioner no.1 and were never appointed at the post of a permanent worker. Hence, it cannot be said that they are "badli" workers.

37. In view of the foregoing submissions, the respondents prayed that the instant petition may be dismissed.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

38. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

39. It is the case of the petitioners that the impugned award passed by the Tribunal is not aligned with settled legal principles. Specifically, it was argued that a contract worker cannot claim regularization as a right once their contract term has expired, resulting in termination. The petitioners (2009) 8 SCC 556 KUMAR BABBAR W.P.(C) 2133/2020 Signing Date:01.08.2024 18:21:38 asserted that the demand for regularization by the respondents (workmen) is not in accordance with established legal positions. Furthermore, it was emphasized that respondents 1 to 3 and other contract workers were hired by outsourcing agencies (respondents 4 and 5), not directly by the petitioners, who did not pay their salaries. Therefore, the petitioners contended that these workers were never the "workmen" of the petitioners, absolving the petitioners of any responsibility to regularize their services. Additionally, the petitioners highlighted that respondents 1 to 3 and their group received appointment letters and salaries from the outsourcing agencies.

40. The petitioners only provided daily attendance reports to the outsourcing agencies, who then raised bills accordingly. The petitioners argued that the impugned award failed to appreciate the evidence and facts on record. They further contended that the Tribunal overlooked established legal principles, including the Supreme Court's ruling that contract workers cannot be appointed in place of regular vacancies unless such vacancies exist. The petitioners noted that no regular posts were created for the computerization project, and after one year, regular staff would take over operations without contractual workers. The petitioners emphasized that the Tribunal erred in not applying the law that workers supplied by a contractor, even if working under the principal employer's direction, do not become direct employees of the principal employer. Thus, the petitioners concluded that there is no basis for the regularization of respondents 1 to 3 and other contracted workers.

59. Further, the learned Tribunal also relied upon the findings of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers3,where the Hon‟ble Court laid down circumstances where the contract workers would be held to be the workmen of the principal employer.

60. It was observed by learned Tribunal that the Management of petitioners has presented work orders and invoices dated January 2014, issued to M/s E Centric Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and M/s AIP Company Pvt. Ltd. However, the management did not provide any agreements or contracts awarded to contractors or empaneled vendors from 2006 onwards to clarify if these were for project completion or manpower supply. Additionally, the management did not submit work orders or invoices for the period from 2008 to 2013. MW-1 admitted that the petitioner no.1‟s management never obtained a license under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. A tripartite agreement among the petitioners was (2001) 7 SCC 1 KUMAR BABBAR W.P.(C) 2133/2020 Signing Date:01.08.2024 18:21:38 executed in December 2008, yet the workers had been employed since 2006 at petitioner no.1‟s dispensaries and offices in Delhi and beyond. If the workmen were employees of the contractors or vendors, the control and supervision of their work would have been managed by these contractors, not petitioner no.1.