Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. In the case between K.K. Thilakan & Ors. Vs. FACT Ltd. & Anr. 1992 II LLJ 782 the disputants were not the workmen of the Company; they were stated to be contract workers. They sought employment with the Company. They wanted to be absorbed in the Company. They were employed by a Contractor. Such employment can only be of persons who were outside the establishment. Upon the admitted case that they were contract workers it was held that there was no industrial dispute between them and the Company as none could arise unless they were absorbed. Before that could happen they cannot consider the Company as their employer and cannot treat themselves as its workmen. When the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute was challenged it was held that there could not have been any reference for any industrial dispute. It was held that there could be no industrial dispute between the employer and between the persons "seeking" employment.

However, Mr. Patil argued that this would come about only when contract labour is accepted and the appropriate Government abolishes the contract labour upon procedure prescribed by law under Section 10 of the C.L. Act. Since in this case the contract labour is not abolished and specifically allowed under the order dated 16th November 2002, the employers' duty to absorb the workmen and regularise their services does not come up. The case of the workmen that the contract labour is sham can only be an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act, if the permanent workmen would support the cause of the workmen who are stated to be contract labourers, but who contend that that position is sham. Mr. Patil contends that since the persons claiming to be workmen and not contract labourers are not admittedly workmen they must prove first that they are workmen. This they can do only by proving the contract labour to be sham. Before they can prove that they are workmen they cannot be taken to be workmen. Hence, they cannot maintain an industrial dispute themselves directly by making an application in that behalf themselves. They cannot themselves show that they are personally interested in the dispute as workmen because they are not admitted to be workmen or proved to be workmen. Therefore, their case must necessarily be taken up by other workmen. These can be workmen having a nexus with their dispute and having a community of interest or a substantial interest in their dispute. That can only be, if they are represented by a union. The union of the employer cannot represent them because they are not the workmen of the employer and consequently, not members of such union. The other workers can have no nexus with their dispute. Their dispute is personal only to them. It is for them to show that the contract labour is sham and that they are actually workers or for them to accept the contract labour for whatever it is worth and exercise in the direction of getting it abolished by following the procedure established by law under Section 10 of the C.L. Act, which procedure is already followed.

15.Mr. Patil would however contend that there is a distinction between a "dispute brought" and a "dispute raised". The expression "brought", he contends, is the action in law brought by regular workers supporting those contract labourers to make it a collective dispute as a class action with community of interest which is an essential of an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act held since the case of Dimakuchi Tea Estate in 1958 (supra). An action raised, he contends, would be the action raised by the applicant making the reference himself. Hence for a reference to be made the support of the regular workers who have a substantial interest in the dispute would be a condition precedent and since the applicants are not workmen themselves, they cannot raise an industrial dispute themselves.

They are given airport passes instead of the identity cards issued to permanent workers. They keep the maintenance register and maintain a check of the terminal building, oversee their work and make reports upon the complaints received. The officers prepare their wage-bill. They have to apply for leave to the officers of the Petitioner. They are given only "leave of absence". They have to mention in writing that they intend to go on leave and their wages are deducted "by the management". They perform identical duties as the permanent workmen. They rely upon an office note dated 2nd July 2001 showing that they are employed because "contract workers are more efficient and easy to control than the departmental labour".