Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: contract workers in The Management Of vs Mr. Vijaya Kumar B And 4 Ors on 2 May, 2025Matching Fragments
13.7. The decision in Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola's case (supra2) relied upon by the learned counsel to contend that mere supervision would not make a contract worker, a worker of the employer is not applicable for the reason that in the present case, it is not just supervision, but also allotment of work fixing of targets for each of the contract workmen was made by the employer. Whether the salary is paid directly by the principal employer to the workmen or through contractor, in my considered opinion, would not make much of a difference if the engagement of the workmen is made through a contractor as a camouflage. It is only when a contractor has been hired who in turn deputes workmen for a specific period of time to conduct non-perennial work, that the decision in Bharatlals' case (supra4) relied upon by Sri.K.R.Anand would be applicable and not in a situation where a workmen having been engaged for a long period of time though a contractor to provide services for the employer. 13.8. The last contention of Sri.K.R.Anand in this regard is that so long as the contract labour is permitted and there is no embargo under Section 10 of the CLRA, any employer can make use of contract labour and that labour cannot seek for regularization is also in my considered opinion not a proposition to be applied to the present case. 13.9. The engagement of contract labour being permitted merely on account of no prohibition under Section 10 of CLRA being made would not entitle an employer to use the said process for its own benefit in reducing its burden and or depriving the workmen of their just wages. In the event of a notification under Section 10 being issued, it is very clear that no contract labour could be used. If any workmen are engaged through a contractor then they would get the preference for being considered for appointment as and when there is a vacancy which arises. Even otherwise, though no notification under Section 10 is issued if the employer were to terminate a contract with a contractor and the employer were to engage new labour, it would be the duty of the employer to provide employment to those workmen as and when vacancy arises, as also for the employer not to engage any other workmen other than the contract workers for the said post without offering the same to the contract workers. Thus, whether a notification is issued under Section 10 of CLRA or not, the right of the workmen to raise industrial dispute of they being denied work would still continue. 13.10. The Judgments relied upon by Sri.A.J.Srinivasan in the case of National Union Waterfront Workers (supra10) and Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra¹¹) would be applicable inasmuch as if the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer and this determination would be a preliminary determination for the purpose of adjudicating the dispute between the principal employer and the workmen.
14. The main limb of argument of Sri.K.Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel is that, there is no jural relationship of employer and employee between the appellant and the respondents - workmen. The workmen were engaged through a labour contractor by name M/s.Madhu Enterprises and the work is not perennial in nature. Out of 16 workers engaged through contract labour, 11 of them settled their claims with the M/s.Madhu Enterprises. Subsequent to termination of the labour agreement with the M/s.Madhu Enterprises only 5 i.e., the respondents-workmen herein raised dispute which resulted in reference. Out of five workers, one worker by name Sri.Vijayakumar herein settled his dispute with M/s.Madhu Enterprises on 23.07.2018 on receiving of Rs.36,000/- from his employer. The said settlement dated 23.07.2018 between respondent No.1 and M/s.Madhu Enterprises was also produced as Annexure-R1 to the statement of objections filed to the writ petition filed by the respondent-workmen challenging the part of the award passed by the labour court. This fact also throws light on the specific defense of the appellant-management that the respondent-workmen are not employees of the appellant and there is no relationship of employer-employees between the parties.
16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the following decisions to base his arguments:
1. 1992 F.J.R. Volume No.80 Page No.149 Karnataka High Court - Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Contract Workers Union;
2. [2008] 14 SCC - Page 589 - Steel Authority of India Ltd., and another vs. State of West Bengal and others;28
3. [2006] Vol. 12 - SCC - Page 233 - Steel Authority of India Ltd., vs. Union of India and others;
"125. xxx xxx xxx (5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator 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 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 various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit there under. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned subject to the (2001) 7 SCC 1 conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder".