Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. There are number of judgment pronounced by Supreme Court dealing with the nature of such contract labour under the Act. For the purpose of deciding the controversy in the present case, it is not necessary to refer to all these judgments. The matter is exhaustively dealt with in the case of Air India Statutory Corporation & Others Vs. United Labour Union and Others (supra) as well as recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secretary H.S.E.B. Vs. Suresh and Others (supra). It would be sufficient to refer to the judgments quoted by the parties in this case, reference to which has already been made above.

It is true that with the passage of time and purely with a view to safeguard the interests of workers, many principal employers while renewing the contracts have been insisting that the contractor or the new contractor retains the old employees. In fact such condition is incorporated in the contract itself. However, such a clause in the contract which is benevolently inserted in the contract to protect the continuance of the source of livelihood of the contract labour cannot by itself give rise to a right to regularisation in the employment of the Principal employer. Whether the contract labourers have become the employees of the principal employer in course of time and whether the engagement and employment of labourers through a contractor is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen, as has been urged in this case, is a question of fact and has to be established by the contract labourers on the basis of the requisite material. It is not ossible for High Court or this Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction or jurisdiction under Article 136 to decide such question, only on the basis of the affidavits. It need not to be pointed about that in such cases, the labourers are initially employed and engaged by the contractors. As such at what point of time a direct link is established between the contract labourers and the principal employer eliminating the contractor from the scene, is a matter which has to be established on material produced before the Court. Normally, the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal, under the Industrial Disputes Act are the competent fora to adjudicate such disputes on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence produced before them.

22. It was on the basis of aforesaid findings given by the Assistant Labour Commissioner in which it was clearly stated that the work done by such workers was of permanent and perennial in nature and in certain Railway Stations such work was done by employees regularly and permanently employed by Railways, that the court gave specific directions. It is, therefore, again a case where Supreme Court had called for the report, which was given by Assistant Labour Commissioner on the basis of evidence produced before it by both the parties. Thus, it can be said that under the directions of Supreme Court, Assistant Labour Commissioner performed the function, which is normally to be performed by Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, as noticed in the judgment of R.K. Panda case or by appropriate Government under Section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act. This case, therefore, cannot be of any help to the petitioners.

6. In case the contract workers claim that a particular contract in any process, operation or other work in the establishment is sham, and they have become direct employees of the principal employer then the remedy is to raise industrial dispute.

27. Whether such contract labourers have become the employees of Principal Employer in course of time and whether the engagement and employment of labourers through contract is a mere camouflage and a smoke screen is a question of fact and has to be established by the contract labourers on the basis of requisite material. If in a given case, contract labourers contend that the work is of perennial nature and the contractor is a mere camouflage, the appropriate remedy for them is to raise industrial dispute and seek reference to Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, which are the competent fora to adjudicate such dispute on the basis of oral and documentary evidence produced before them.