Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10) Ms. Singh would take me through one of the Work Orders issued in favour of M/s. Moosa Services Company, which was for tenure of only one year and that there was no condition imposed on the contractor for payment of gratuity. She would submit that if Respondents are made to run behind the contractors, they will have to file multiple claims against several contractors though they have rendered continuous services with IIT, Bombay, even after termination of contracts of such contractors. That Respondents cannot be punished for non-impleadment of contractors as specific application was filed for providing list of contractors and IIT, Bombay failed to provide such list. She would take me through evidence on record in support of her contention that the officials of IIT, Bombay, In-charge Junior Engineer at Central and Estate office used to give instructions for performance of work. That specific evidence was led about the change of employer during the course of service of Respondents. Ms. Singh would therefore submit that the Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority have rightly inferred that Petitioner is the real employer having complete control over the affairs of Respondents and

 Megha                                                           WP_12746_2024_fc.docx




25)        It appears that Special Leave Petition filed by Contractor

challenging the judgment in Cummins (I) Ltd. (supra) has been dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 27 February 2017.

26) In my view the judgment rendered by this Court in Cummins (I) Ltd. (supra) is in unique facts and circumstances of that case and the same cannot be applied to the present case. In Cummin (I) Ltd. this Court held that the contractor therein had ultimate control over the affairs of its establishment and that the contractor could have posted the workers either at its own premises or in the factory of the company. Whether this could have been done by the contractor in the present case? The answer to my mind appears to be in negative. As observed above, the Respondents have continued to work at IIT, Bombay for several years despite change of multiple contractors. There is evidence on record to indicate that supervision and control over activities of Respondents used to be exercised by engineers and officials of IIT, Bombay. In fact, two out of the three Respondents were initially engaged by IIT, Bombay and subsequently converted as contract workers. Only their salaries were routed through the contractors. None of the contractors paid salaries to Respondents never made them work for a single day outside IIT, Bombay. It is therefore, difficult to hold that Respondents were working on the establishment of the contractors and not on the establishment of the IIT, Bombay. If, Petitioners were to work at various places where contracts are awarded to contractors, their services would be on the establishment of such contractors. In the present case, despite being total absence of any contract between contractors for continuation of services of same workers, Respondents have continued to serve at the campus of the IIT. Their services are thus rendered on the establishment of IIT, Bombay and not on the Megha WP_12746_2024_fc.docx establishment of the new contractors. In my view, therefore, the Controlling and Appellate Authorities have rightly held Petitioner-IIT, Bombay to be the employer liable to pay gratuity to the Respondents.

28) As observed above, if Respondents are made to run behind multiple contractors for securing gratuity from each of them, the same would not only result in multiplicity of proceedings but would also frustrate the very purpose of creating swift and speedy remedy before the Controlling Authority for payment of gratuity. Respondents have continuously worked at the campus of IIT, Bombay through multiple contractors. The common thread runs through different terms of service rendered by them is their connection with IIT, Bombay. It is difficult to hold that the terms and conditions of services of Respondents were determined by succeeding contractors and that IIT Bombay had absolutely no control or supervision over them in 39 years long services rendered by one of the Respondents. This clearly appears to be an arrangement of merely routing of salaries through the contractor.

33.All rules and regulations under the Labour Contract Act, 1970 and minimum wages act are required to be followed scrupulously while supplying labourers to the institute.

31) When IIT, Bombay is specific in directing deposit of ESIC and PF contribution, it is incomprehensible as to why liability for payment of gratuity was not specifically incorporated in the Work Order. It appears that in the description of work appended to the contract, there is a condition for continuous deployment of workmen for maximum 89 days excluding Sundays and holidays against various requisition issued by the Estate Office. Far from engaging different workers for maximum tenure of 89 days, the Respondents continued to work with IIT, Bombay notwithstanding replacement of various contractors. In fact, if the tests laid down by the Apex Court in Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr Etc.Etc vs Air India Ltd.& Ors 5, Respondent would be in a position to satisfy most of the said tests for the purpose of establishment of employer -employee relationship even under the ID Act. Since the enquiry into existence of employer- employee relationship in the context of PG Act is summary or preliminary in nature, which does not bind parties outside the framework of PG Act, it is not necessary to satisfy all the tests laid down in Balwant Rai Saluja (supra). Be that as it may. It is not necessary to delve deeper into the terms and conditions of Work Order to which Respondents are not parties. The present case involves peculiar facts and circumstances, under which some workmen have continued with IIT-Bombay through multiple contractors. I am therefore, convinced that for the limited purpose of payment of gratuity, Respondents are required to be treated as employee of IIT-