Case Law Details
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola & Ors. (Supreme Court)
Conclusion: Since the workmen was employed by the contractor not by assessee-BHEL and no wages were ever been paid to them by BHEL as they were in the service of the contractor, therefore, the workmen was not under the command, control, management of the BHEL and, concomitantly, the contractor had absolutely control over the workmen in performing such duties. More so, assessee-BHEL had nothing to do with the termination of services of the workmen by the contractor.
Held: Labour Court held, referring to a notification dated 24.04.1990 under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1970 Act’), that the said notification, on application to BHEL, would show that the workmen were not deployed to do the work mentioned in the notification. It was further held that based on documentary evidence in the form of gate passes, the workmen, who were otherwise employed by a contractor, were directly employed by BHEL. It was also held to have been fairly conceded by the employer’s representative that supervision, superintendence and administrative control of all these workmen were with BHEL. It was also held that under the extended definition of “employer” in the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, even if the workmen were regarded as workmen of a contractor, they would yet be workmen of the BHEL as BHEL was within the extended definition of “employer” under the Act. From this Labour Award, a review petition was filed by BHEL, in which it was clearly stated that no such concession, as recorded by the Labour Court, was made before it. Further, notification dated 24.04.1990 had no application as Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) was exempted therefrom and, therefore, to apply this notification to the facts of this case was also wrong. This writ petition was dismissed by the High Court recording that “undisputedly” all petitioners, i.e., workmen, were performing the duties which were identical with those of regular employees. Therefore, it could be said that they were under the command, control, management of the BHEL and, concomitantly, the contractor had absolutely no control over the workmen in performing such duties. It was, therefore, held that the alleged contract with the contractor was “sham” and, consequently, the Labour Court Award was correct in law and was upheld. Against this order, a special leave petition was filed by BHEL. It was held a reading of the aforesaid notification makes it clear that assessee-BHEL, insofar as their UP operations were concerned, in particular, were exempted from the aforesaid notification. Despite this, however, the Labour Court went on to apply the said notification, which would clearly be perverse. What was clear from the evidence that was led by the parties was that the aforesaid gate passes were issued, as has been stated by BHEL’s witness, only at the request of the contractor for the sake of safety and also from the administrative point of view. Moreover, the workmen had themselves admitted that there was no appointment letter, provident fund number or wage slip from BHEL insofar as they were concerned. Apart from this, it was also clear from the evidence led on behalf of BHEL, that no wages were ever been paid to them by BHEL as they were in the service of the contractor. Further, it was also specifically pointed out that the names of 29 workers were on the basis of a List provided by the contractor in a bid that was made consequent to a tender notice by BHEL. There was nothing on facts to show that the contract labour that was engaged, even de hors a prohibition notification, was in the facts of this case ‘sham’.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT
The present appeals arise out of a judgement dated 24.04.2014 and a review dismissal from the aforesaid judgment dated 11.09.2014, by which the High Court of Uttarakhand has dismissed a writ petition against a Labour Court’s Award.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
