Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.1 has argued that the Respondent No.1 has taken registration under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "CLRA Act") since 2006 by Ex.D/65 and D/66. Similarly, respondents No. 2 & 3 are licensed contractors under CLRA Act and the salary, ESI and PF contribution of the petitioners has always been paid by the Respondents No. 2 & 3 only. It has been further argued that the contribution alleged to have been made by Ex. P/11, P/13 and P/18 are prior to 2010 which were made under Code of Respondent No.1 till 2010, the said Contractors did not have his individual ESI Code, thus, the Respondent No. 1 being a principal employer, the ESI contribution was being deposited under the Code of the Respondent No. 1 and as soon as the Respondents no. 3 got his individual code from 2010, the ESI contribution was deposited by the Contractors under his own code which fact is evident from Ex. D/243 which is a communication by Contractor to ESIC Department. It is further argued that from perusal of Ex D/13, D/14, D/16, D/17, D/21, D/25, D/26, D/28, D/34, D/35, D/43, D/44 and D/60 it is evident that contributions of P.F. was made by the Contractors after their registration. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has further relied on evidence of DW/5 Mahendra Gadning who is Accountant in Provident Fund Authority and the said witness has exhibited Document Ex. D/179 to D/184 which are ledger of contribution made by Contractors for the employees.

12. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of International Airport Authority of India- International Air Cargo Workers' Union reported in (2009)13 SCC 374 has held as hereunder:-

"35. As noticed above, SAIL did not specifically deal with the legal position as to when a dispute is brought before the Industrial Adjudicator as to whether the contract labour agreement is sham, nominal and merely a camouflage, when there is no prohibition notification under section 10(1) of CLRA Act.
36. But where there is no abolition of contract labour under section 10 of CLRA Act, but the contract labour contend that the contract between principal employer and contractor is sham and nominal, the remedy is purely under the ID Act. The principles in Gujarat Electricity Board continue to govern the issue. The remedy of the NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:4268 workmen is to approach the industrial adjudicator for an adjudication of their dispute that they are the direct employees of the principle employer and the agreement is sham, nominal and merely a camouflage, even when there is no order under section 10(1) of CLRA Act.

15. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid two decisions to the facts of the case on hand and in the absence of any notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act and in the absence of any allegations and/or findings that the contract was sham and camouflage, both the Industrial Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed a serious error in reinstating the contesting respondents and directing the appellant principal employer to absorb them as their employees. The parties shall be governed by the CLRA Act and relief, if any, could have been granted under the provisions of the CLRA Act and not under the MPIR Act.