Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Learned Counsel further submitted that even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that the workmen were engaged through labour contractor in terms of the agreement dated 3.1.1986 (Annexure P-4) for posting them as Security guards at Buffer Go-down, Dhand (Kurukshetra), they will be deemed to be the direct employees of the Management Corporation, because their engagement as contract labour was in violation of Sections 10, 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act, as on the date of the appointment of the workmen, neither the Management Corporation was having a Certificate of Registration under Section 7 of the CLRA Act nor respondent No. 3 was holding a licence under Section 12 of the CLRA Act. Learned Counsel further submitted that on the date of appointment, even no notification was issued with regard to the establishment in question of the Management Corporation, as the notification dated 29.11.1985 (Annexure P-1) was not issued by the Central Government, which was the appropriate Government. Learned Counsel, while referring to the decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers , submitted that as far as the Management Corporation is concerned, the Central Government is the appropriate Government, who can issue notification under Section 10 of the Act with regard to the establishment of the Management Corporation. Learned Counsel, while further referring to para 121 of the aforesaid decision of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Food Corporation of India, Haryana Region, Sector 17, Chandigarh v. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh (1927-2) 92 P.L.R. 22, submitted that if on the date of employment of the contract labour, the Management Corporation did not get itself registered under Section 7 of the CLRA Act and on that date, the labour contractor was having no licence under Section 12 of the CLRA Act, then the workmen employed by the Management Corporation through respondent No. 3 shall be deemed to be the employees of the Management Corporation. Learned Counsel submitted that in the present cases, all the workmen were appointed between August, 1986 to December, 1987 and the Management Corporation got itself registered under Section 7 of the CLRA Act vide Certificate of Registration dated 4.7.1988 and the labour contractor i.e. respondent No. 3 got licence under Section 12 of the CLRA Act on 8.7.1988. Therefore, on the day of employment of the workmen, neither the Management Corporation was registered with the Labour Department under Section 7 of the CLRA Act nor respondent No. 3, the labour contractor, was having any licence for appointing the contract labour for the Management Corporation. Therefore, learned Counsel submitted that there is no illegality in the finding of the Labour Court to the effect that the workmen were the direct employees of the Management Corporation.

10. While replying to the alternative argument raised by learned Counsel for the workmen, learned Counsel for the Management Corporation submitted that on 29.11.1985, when notification (Annexure P-1) was issued under Section 10 of the CLRA Act, as per the definition of the 'appropriate Government', the Haryana Government was the appropriate Government for issuance of the notification for the establishments of the Food Corporation of India, which were located in the State of Haryana. Learned Counsel submitted that the definition of the 'appropriate Government' was subsequently amended by the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act (14 of 1986) with effect from 28.1.1986. Prior to the said amendment, the question whether the Central Government or the State Government was the appropriate Government in relation to an establishment is to be decided in accordance with the definition of the expression of appropriate Government as stood in the CLRA Act. Learned Counsel for the Management Corporation submitted that this view has been expressed by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers and Ors. (supra). Therefore, it can not be said that the notification (Annexure P-1) issued by the State Government with regard to establishment of the Food Corporation of India was not a valid notification, as the same was not issued by the Central Government. Learned Counsel further submitted that a Division Bench of this Court in Gian Singh v. Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Punjab Region, Chandigarh (supra) has held that if the principal employer does not get registration as required under Section 7 of the CLRA Act and or the labour contractor does not get a licence under Section 12 of the CLRA. Act, the person so appointed by the principal employer through the labour contractor would not be deemed to be the direct employee of the principal employer. If the principal employer without there being registration does employ the persons through such labour contractor, then only the penal provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the CLRA Act will be attached and the principal employer can be proceeded against under these Sections, but the CLRA Act no where provide that such employees employed through the labour contractor would become employees of the principal employer. Learned Counsel for the Management Corporation submitted that the Division Bench decision of this Court was approved by the Supreme Court in Dena Nath v. National Fertilizers Ltd. , where the contrary view taken by the Madras, Bombay, Gajarat and Karnataka High Courts was not approved. Learned Counsel further submitted that the view taken in Dena Nath's case (supra) was again considered and approved in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers (supra).

20. The next question, which is to be answered is whether the workmen can be deemed to be direct employees of the Management Corporation, because their employment as contract labour was in violation of Sections 10, 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act, as on the date of their appointment, neither the Management Corporation was having a Certificate of Registration under Section 7 of the CLRA Act nor respondent No. 3 was holding a licence under Section 12 of the CLRA Act. It is further argued by counsel for the workmen that on the date of appointment of the workmen, even no notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act was issued with regard to the establishment of the Management Corporation, as the notification dated 29.11.1985 (Annexure P-1) was not issued by the Central Government, which was the appropriate Government. Undisputedly, the services of the workmen were engaged through respondent No. 3, the labour contractor, between August, 1986 to December, 1987 and the Management Corporation got itself registered under Section 7 of the CLRA Act vide Certificate of Registration dated 4.7.1988 and the labour contractor i.e. respondent No. 3 got licence under Section 12 of the CLRA Act on 8.7.1988. Therefore, on the date of employment of the workmen, neither the Management Corporation was registered with the Labour Department under Section 7 of the CLRA Act nor respondent No. 3, the labour contractor, was having any licence for appointing the contract labour for the Management Corporation. However, on the date of termination of their services i.e. 30.3.1989, the Management Corporation was registered with the Labour department under Section 7 of the CLRA Act and the labour contractor was having a licence for appointing the contract labour for the Management Corporation under Section 12 of the CLRA Act. Vide notification dated 29.11.1985 (Annexure P-1), the State of Government, which was the appropriate Government for all the store depots situated in the territory of Haryana, prohibited employment of contract labour in 22 Food Storage depots. In that list, Buffer Godown, Dhand (Kurukshetra) was not mentioned. In view of the said notification, Buffer Godown, Dhand (Kurukshetra) was not the prohibited Center, where the Management Corporation was prohibited from engaging contract labour.

22. The alternate contention raised by learned Counsel for the workmen that the workmen would be deemed to be direct employees of the Management Corporation, because their engagement as contract labour was in violation of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act, also cannot be accepted. This question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Gian Singh v. Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Punjab Region, Chandigarh (supra) and it, was held that if a principle employer does employs the persons through the contractor who is having no licence under Section 12 of the CLRA Act, then only penal provisions of Section 23 and 25 of the said Act are attracted, i.e. the principle employer can be prosecuted against under these Sections, but the CLRA Act no where provides that such employees employed through the contractor would become employees of the principle employer. In this Division Bench judgment, the earlier Division Bench decision of this Court in Food Corporation of India, Haryana Region, Sector 17, Chandigarh v. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh (supra) was also considered and was not followed, as one of the judge, who was Member of that Division Bench, had subsequently taken the view, as taken by the Subsequent Division Bench. This judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Dena Nath v. National Fertilizers Ltd. (supra). The Supreme Court noticed that there was a direct conflict between the decisions of the High Courts of Punjab, Kerala on the one hand and the decisions of Madras, Bombay, Gujarat and Karnataka High courts on the other. The view taken by the High Courts Punjab and Kerala was that the only consequence of non-compliance either by the principal employer of Section 7 of the CLRA Act or by the contractor in complying with Section 12 of the CLRA Act is that they are liable for prosecution under the Act; whereas the view taken by the Madras, Bombay, Gujarat and Karnataka High Courts was that in such a situation the contract labour becomes directly the employee of the principal employer. The Supreme Court, after considering the various provisions of the CLRA Act and the other decisions, approved the view taken by the High Courts of Punjab and Kerala. It was held that the CLRA Act as can be seen from the scheme of the Act, merely regulates the employment of contract labour in certain establishment and provides for its abolition in certain circumstances. The Act does not provide for total abolition of contract labour but it provides for its abolition by the appropriate Government in appropriate cases under Section 10 of the Act. It was further held that if the appropriate Government has not prohibited the contract labour in a particular establishment by issuing notification under Section 10 of the CLRA act, then employment of the contract labour through the contractor is not prohibited. If by engaging the contract labour and by prohibiting the services of the contract labour by the contractor to the principal employer, the provisions of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act have been violated, the only consequence of those violations will be as envisaged under Sections 23 and 25 of the CLRA Act and the contract labour engaged in violation of the provisions of Sections 7 and 12 of the CLRA Act cannot be deemed to be the employees of the principal employer; and the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can not issue a mandamus for deeming them as having become the employees of the principal employer. The decision of Dena Nath v. National Fertilizers Ltd. and Ors. (supra) was considered by the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. v. National Union Water Front Workers and Ors. (supra), in the light of 3 Judges Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union and Ors. J.T. 1996 (11) S.C. 109, in which it was held that when the engagement of contract labour stood prohibited on publication of the notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, from that moment the principal employer cannot continue contract labour and direct relationship gets established between the workmen and the principal employer. While approving the decision of Dena Nath's case (supra) and over-ruling the decision of AIR India Statutory Corporation and Ors. v. United Labour Union and Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court observed as under: