SAIL v. State of West Bengal (Available at http://www.judis.nic.in/) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5846 OF 2008 decided on September 25, 2008.
Excerpts from the Judgement:
Respondent No.4 i.e. National Union of Water Front Worker (in short the `Union') made a representation to Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) on 21.4.1987 seeking conciliation of proceeding for regularization of services of members of its Union who were working as contract labours with M/s Bardhan and Co. under principal employers i.e. the present appellants. Another representation was made on 4.6.1987 to the Labour Commissioner claiming the status of the workers as contract labours of aforesaid M/s Bardhan and Co. under present appellants and for regularization. The State of West Bengal issued Notification on 15.7.1989 prohibiting employment of contract labours in the 4 stockyards. The aforesaid notification was kept in abeyance from time to time and ultimately was extended till March 1994. Some workers belonging to the Union filed Writ Petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking absorption in view of Notification dated 15.7.1989. It was inter-alia stated that they were working as contract labours. Learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court by order dated 25.4.1994 held that the writ petitioners were entitled to absorption and regularisation from 15.7.1989 when the contract labour was abolished. The present appellants were directed to absorb and regularize the writ petitioners in any establishment under their control and the absorption was to be made according to suitability and experience for a particular job. An appeal was filed by the present appellants which was dismissed by a Division Bench. Thereafter Special Leave Petitions Nos. 12657-58 of 1998 were filed before this Court. The matter was referred to the Constitution Bench, which inter alia, [the famous/notorious SAIL v National Union of Water Front Workers AIR 2001 SC 3527 which overrruled Air India Statutory Corporation and Ors. v. United Labour Union and Ors. (1997 (9) SCC 377)] overruled the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.
[Subsequently] the workers raised a dispute under Section 10(1) of the Act in October 2001 and January 2002, inter alia, that the agreement between the contractor and the contract labourer was bogus and therfore the existing arrangement was a sham. On 18.11.2003, as noted above, the reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal which was challenged before the High Court by filing a writ petition. The primary stand taken was that in view of the accepted position by the Union and the employees at different points of time that the workers were contract labours, and having at no point of time pleaded that the agreement with the contractors was sham and bogus, after long lapse of time it was impermissible to raise such a dispute purportedly in view of certain observations in SAIL's case.
[The Court had to decide whether the reference of the Appropriate Government under Section 10 of the ID Act was valid or not. The Court cited various judgements which provided, inter alia, that a party cannot make pleadings that are inconsistant with its previous pleadings. Further the Court also held that though the order for reference of an industrial dispute under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act is an administrative order, there should be application of mind. The appropriate government must prima facie satisfy itself that there exists a dispute as to whether the contract was a sham and the workmen are in fact not employed by the contractor but by the management.
Therefore the Court quashed the reference of appropriate government and allowed the appeal]
Excerpts from the Judgement:
Respondent No.4 i.e. National Union of Water Front Worker (in short the `Union') made a representation to Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) on 21.4.1987 seeking conciliation of proceeding for regularization of services of members of its Union who were working as contract labours with M/s Bardhan and Co. under principal employers i.e. the present appellants. Another representation was made on 4.6.1987 to the Labour Commissioner claiming the status of the workers as contract labours of aforesaid M/s Bardhan and Co. under present appellants and for regularization. The State of West Bengal issued Notification on 15.7.1989 prohibiting employment of contract labours in the 4 stockyards. The aforesaid notification was kept in abeyance from time to time and ultimately was extended till March 1994. Some workers belonging to the Union filed Writ Petition before the Calcutta High Court seeking absorption in view of Notification dated 15.7.1989. It was inter-alia stated that they were working as contract labours. Learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court by order dated 25.4.1994 held that the writ petitioners were entitled to absorption and regularisation from 15.7.1989 when the contract labour was abolished. The present appellants were directed to absorb and regularize the writ petitioners in any establishment under their control and the absorption was to be made according to suitability and experience for a particular job. An appeal was filed by the present appellants which was dismissed by a Division Bench. Thereafter Special Leave Petitions Nos. 12657-58 of 1998 were filed before this Court. The matter was referred to the Constitution Bench, which inter alia, [the famous/notorious SAIL v National Union of Water Front Workers AIR 2001 SC 3527 which overrruled Air India Statutory Corporation and Ors. v. United Labour Union and Ors. (1997 (9) SCC 377)] overruled the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.
[Subsequently] the workers raised a dispute under Section 10(1) of the Act in October 2001 and January 2002, inter alia, that the agreement between the contractor and the contract labourer was bogus and therfore the existing arrangement was a sham. On 18.11.2003, as noted above, the reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal which was challenged before the High Court by filing a writ petition. The primary stand taken was that in view of the accepted position by the Union and the employees at different points of time that the workers were contract labours, and having at no point of time pleaded that the agreement with the contractors was sham and bogus, after long lapse of time it was impermissible to raise such a dispute purportedly in view of certain observations in SAIL's case.
[The Court had to decide whether the reference of the Appropriate Government under Section 10 of the ID Act was valid or not. The Court cited various judgements which provided, inter alia, that a party cannot make pleadings that are inconsistant with its previous pleadings. Further the Court also held that though the order for reference of an industrial dispute under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act is an administrative order, there should be application of mind. The appropriate government must prima facie satisfy itself that there exists a dispute as to whether the contract was a sham and the workmen are in fact not employed by the contractor but by the management.
Therefore the Court quashed the reference of appropriate government and allowed the appeal]
No comments:
Post a Comment