Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. According to the petitioner, these 34 workmen were working in canteen run by the STI through one contractor namely M/S Gayatri Catering and Nursery ( hereinafter referred as " M/s Gayatri " ). Out of the 34 workmen, 29 workmen were deployed at the canteen work and 5 workmen were deployed at the garden for gardening work. M/S Gayatri was the contractor and the STI was the employer with respect to these 34 workmen. After purchase of the said unit, the petitioner becomes a principal employer with respect to those 34 workmen. M/S Gayatri obtained a certificate dated 5th August 2004 under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (herein after referred as "the CLRA Act "). According to the petitioner, all the 34 workmen were being paid salary by M/S Gayatri who used to deduct EPF and ESI contributions. The petitioner being a principal employer filed an application dated 20th Sept. 2006 with the Registration officer under the CLRA Act and the certificate dated 20th November 2006 was issued to the petitioner by the competent authority.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 2928/2017 (s) Page no. 9 The Court must apply the test of complete administration control.

20. He has further placed reliance over the judgment delivered in the case of International Airport Authority of India Vs. International Air Cargo Workers Union and another reported in 2009(13) SCC, 374, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where there is no notification under section 10 of the CLRA Act and where it is not proved in industrial adjudication that the contract was shame and bogus then the question of directing the principal employer to regularize of contract labours does not arise. He has further placed reliance over the judgment delivered in the case of Dena Nath and others Vs. National Fertilizers Ltd and others reported in (1992) 1 SCC 695. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the order dated 16 th January , 2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 6491/2010 [ Ipca Laboratories Vs Laghu Udyog Mazdoor Union] in which, this Court has remanded the case to the Industrial Court to decide afresh in accordance with law after appreciating evidence on record, because the labour Court has wrongly placed the burden on the employer and incorrectly drawn adverse influence without properly appreciating the position of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

sition as to when a dispute is brought before the industrial adjudica- tor as to whether the contract labour agreement is a sham, nominal and merely a camouflage, when there is no prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.

36**. But where there is no abolition of contract labour under Section 10 of the CLRA Act, but the contract labour contend that the con- tract between the principal employer and the contractor is sham and nominal, the remedy is purely under the ID Act. The principles in Gujarat Electricity Board2 continue to govern the issue. The remedy of the workmen is to approach the industrial adjudicator for an adju- dication of their dispute that they are the direct employees of the principal employer and the agreement is sham, nominal and merely a HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 2928/2017 (s) Page no. 18 camouflage, even when there is no order under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act.

40. The petitioner has examined Shri Dinesh Kumar Bansal, (DW-2), Manager ( personnel ), who in his cross-examination has admitted that despite the court order, he has not produced the schedule, production register, attendance and payment register to the Court in respect of the respondent / union. He has stated that he cannot give the exact number of the workers at the time when the petitioner / Company started production. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid material which came on record by way of oral as well as documentary evidence, it is clear that the management has failed to discharge the burden that the workmen were appointed through the contractor. The workmen are continuously working with the petitioner since 2006 since when it took over the manufacture unit and started production. The management has decided not to retrench any workers and further decided to give canteen work to the contractor and the employees working in the canteen would be adjusted in the production unit, therefore, the management had already taken the decision in respect these 34 workers. There are only two agreements executed in the year 2006 and 2014. There is no agreement from 2008 to 2014. There is no compliance of section 29 of the CLRA Act 1970, 1971 by the contractor as well as by petitioner. Neither the company nor the contractor have the licence as required under the CLRA Act and Rules, 1971, therefore, the learned Labour Court did not commit any error while reaching to the conclusion that members of the respondents / Union are not the contract employees and entitled for all the benefits, which are available to the regular employees. The findings are no at all perverse or pertinacious and Even otherwise, the management has not produce any appointment order issued to their permanent employees. The petitioner has produced Ex-D/29 to D/129 to demonstrate that the HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH W.P. No. 2928/2017 (s) Page no. 28 salary is being paid by M/s Shweta to the workers. On the payment slip / register, only name of the workers are mentioned , but age , addresses and the name of their father have not been mentioned. Even the name of the Company where there are working has not been mentioned, where they are working. There is no counter signature of the manager or supervisor of the petitioner. The salary sheet has not been submitted before the competent authority as required under the provision of the Chapter-VII, therefore, not only the so-called agreement, but the payment sheets and the registers are shame and bogus and prepared only to defend the claim of the respondents. The petitioner has also not produced any document to show that how much amounts were paid from time to time to the contractor for providing the manpower, therefore, these agreements are the shame and bogus.