Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19.12 The Tribunal has referred to evidence to hold that though the Contractors changed the workers remained constant. The Tribunal has found that MOUs concerning the contract workers were signed between the Unions and Appellant without the intervention of the Contractors. The Tribunal has relied on this fact to reach the conclusion that the workers were under the direct control of Appellant. It is irrelevant that the principal employer can sign settlements with the contract workers under Section 30(2) of the Contract Labour Act - the point is that such contracts go to show that Appellant controlled all the service conditions of the contract workers and not the Contractors. The Tribunal has further found from the evidence that the workers were doing the same work as the regular employees and were supervised by Appellant. The Tribunal has also found from the evidence of the Company Witness G. Rajendran (M.W.4) that disciplinary action based on the same Rules as those applicable to other regular employees was taken by Appellant who was maintaining its attendance card and salary register. There is nothing to show that these Gauri Gaekwad 34/87 LPA-337-2011.doc admissions of Appellant's Witnesses are for the period after 1 st April 1997. Though M.W.4, G. Rajendran joined in 2009, he has stated in paragraph 2 of his affidavit-in-lieu of examination-in-chief that he is deposing on the basis of information gathered by him from Appellant's records, which as Manager (HR) he had access to. In view of all the above, the Tribunal has reached the conclusion that contracts were sham and bogus.

19.20 Many of the same questions were raised in a similar situation in GM, ONGC Silchar V/s. ONGC Contractual Workers Union 27. The facts were that a large number of contract workers of Appellant had raised a dispute claiming regularisation. The Tribunal held in favour of the workers. The learned Single Judge reversed the finding of the Tribunal. The Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge mainly on the
25. 2023 I CLR 657
26. (2011) 2 SCC 429
27. (2008) 12 SCC 275 Gauri Gaekwad 40/87 LPA-337-2011.doc ground that a Writ Court may not act as a Court of Appeal. The matter travelled to the Supreme Court where this judgment was rendered. The court said that in the absence of perversity or patent illegality in the finding of the Tribunal it was impermissible for the High Court to reach a different conclusion. It was further stated that though the Reference was worded as if it was accepted that the workers were contract workers, on the basis of the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills (Supra) the Tribunal could pierce the veil to find out the real dispute when both sides were aware of the same.

30 Another workman E.M. Ravindran (P.W.2) in his cross- examination also admits that he does not get all benefits given by Appellant to its employees. He also says that he is getting wages and DA as per the agreement signed between ONGC and contract workers whereas the regular employees of ONGC are getting salary as per agreement signed by ONGC and Union of regular employees and he does not get the benefits of that agreement. In his cross examination, E. M. Ravindran, Union witness P.W.2, admits that he was engaged by Contractors M/s. Moosa Services, his salary was paid by, and Provident Fund was deducted by the Contractor, his PF Gauri Gaekwad 55/87 LPA-337-2011.doc Contributions were remitted to the PF Authority by the Contractor and Bonus was also paid to him, ONGC has recruitment and Promotion Rules, no appointment letter was ever issued to him by ONGC and that he is not getting all the benefits given by ONGC to its regular employees, he was getting DA and regular salary as per regular employees of ONGC, he was not getting benefit of Golden Jubilee Celebrations which was given to permanent employees of ONGC, he was getting 21 days leave salary whereas ONGC employees get 30 days leave, he was claiming direct employment with ONGC "because of order given by the Hon'ble High Court", he has no idea whether he was signing the muster maintained by ONGC for permanent employees, he was not getting benefits of the Agreement signed between ONGC and the Union of regular Employees, his pay scale shows that he got the same benefits of regular employees of ONGC (this is mutually inconsistent), he is already absorbed in the services of ONGC, he has no appointment order from ONGC and ONGC regular employees are getting unlimited medical benefits which he was not getting. 31 Mr. Singhvi submitted that the Tribunal has also found on the basis of evidence that the MOUs were signed about contract workers without the Contractors which shows the extent of control of Appellant over the terms and conditions of their service. But the fact is that the original appointment by Contractors was continued by reason of interim orders of this Court. The Tribunal totally ignores the fact that under Section 30(2) of Gauri Gaekwad 56/87 LPA-337-2011.doc the CLR Act, the principal employer is entitled to enter into a settlement directly with the contract labour. Therefore, there is no evidence to indicate from the workman's side that the contract was sham and bogus. In fact, no evidence has been attempted to be led to prove that the contract between ONCG and the Contractors prior to 1st April 1997 (prior to 1st April 1997 because the Contractors were removed by then) was sham and bogus. None of the witnesses of Appellant have anywhere admitted that these workmen were absorbed as regular employees. The consistent stand of Appellant's witnesses has been that these workmen were only treated as direct employees and that is the correct approach as that is what the order dated 20th January 1997 provide for, "Till further orders, Respondent No.1 shall treat the workmen..... as their direct employee.........". 32 According to the Tribunal the abolition of the contract labour system demonstrates that the contract labours were in fact the workers of Appellant. This conclusion is legally unsustainable because, abolition of contract labour system does not ipso facto make the erstwhile contract labour direct workers of Appellant. The Tribunal concludes that the Provident Fund Inspector Gonsalves (M.W.3), who was produced as Management's witness, had admitted that the Provident Fund of the concerned workers were deposited in the same Contributor Fund of ONGC. This is factually inaccurate when compared to actual evidence of this witness. This witness says:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
24. The Labour Court held that the dispute referred was Gauri Gaekwad 70/87 LPA-337-2011.doc whether the contract workers who were employed in the particular nature of contract work were justified in demanding absorption as regular employees; that the said dispute pre- supposed that the employees were contract workers under the contractors and the question therefore was whether the contract labour system should be abolished and contract workers had to be absorbed by the principal employer; that the employees who sought absorption by VISL were contract labour was evident from the averments made in the claim statement; and that the only remedy available to them was to file writ petition seeking a direction to the central government to take a decision under section 10 of CLRA Act to prohibit employment of contract labour. The Labour Court held that the question under reference related to abolition of contract labour and as the said question could be decided only by appropriate Government under section 10 of the CLRA Act, the dispute was not maintainable under ID Act. Therefore the Labour Court made an award holding that the reference was not maintainable.