Indian Institute of Technology Vs Tanaji Babaji Lad (Bombay High Court)
Conclusion: Some workmen had continued with IIT-Bombay through multiple contractors, therefore, for the limited purpose of payment of gratuity, Respondents were required to be treated as employee of IIT-Bombay.
Held: Assessee-IIT Bombay was a premier research and educational institute in technology and engineering disciplines and established under the provisions of the Institute of Technology Act, 1961. With a view to maintain the infrastructure spread over vast tract of land as well as for execution of various projects, assessee institute need manpower of skilled, semi- skilled and unskilled in nature. For provision of such manpower, assessee engaged various contractors for supply of required labour force. According to assessee, Respondents-employees were few such contract labourers provided by various contractors engaged by it for execution of various works at the campus as well as on projects undertaken by IIT, Bombay. It was contended that Respondents were employees of the concerned contractors and that there had been no employer-employee relationship between assessee and Respondents at any point of time. Respondents filed applications in Form ‘N’ before the Controlling Authority complaining about the non-payment of gratuity by assessee. The Controlling Authority issued notices to assessee in such applications. Assessee appeared before the Controlling Authority and filed its reply denying existence of any employer-employee relationship as well as responsibility to pay gratuity to the Respondents. Assessee also relied upon Clause 9 of the relevant Work Order, under which the contractor was under obligation to follow all labour laws. Assessee prayed for dismissal of the applications. It was held that when IIT, Bombay was specific in directing deposit of ESIC and PF contribution, it was incomprehensible as to why liability for payment of gratuity was not specifically incorporated in the Work Order. It appeared that in the description of work appended to the contract, there was 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.& Ors5, 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 was summary or preliminary in nature, which did not bind parties outside the framework of PG Act, it was not necessary to satisfy all the tests laid down in Balwant Rai Saluja. Be that as it may, it was not necessary to delve deeper into the terms and conditions of Work Order to which Respondents were not parties. The present case involved peculiar facts and circumstances, under which some workmen have continued with IIT-Bombay through multiple contractors. For the limited purpose of payment of gratuity, Respondents were required to be treated as employee of IIT-Bombay.
