Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Contract Workers Association (Karnataka High Court)
No provision under Labour Act required any consultation with contact labourers before entering into any contract
Conclusion: Since there was no provision in the Act enabling the consideration of the contentions of the contract labourers before drawing up of a contract, it was equally true that nothing precludes the hearing of the representatives of the contract labourers before a comprehensive change in the nature of the contract was entered into by the appellants, who were admittedly an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the contract labourers or an authorized representative of the respondent – Union should be put on notice and heard before finalizing Annexure ‘Q’.
Held: Assessee-company was the largest Defence Public Sector Undertaking of the Country owned by Government of India, under the administrative control of the Department of Defence Production, Ministry of Defence. The company was involved in the Design, Manufacture, Repair and Overhaul of Fighter Aircraft, Trainer, Helicopters, etc. Having regard to the temporary increase in work, the Divisions were obliged to engage contract labour in non-core activities which was Permissible under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. It was submitted that so long as there was no prohibition under Section 10 of the said Act, the contract labour could be continued. It was further submitted that the contract labourers were under the control and supervision of the respective contractors and there was no master and servant relationship between the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) and the contract labourers. The respondent – Union had approached this Court filing the Writ Petition challenging Annexure-Q, which was the Revised Comprehensive Service Contract on the ground that it was illegal, void and violative of Articles 14, 21, 23, 39, 42 and 43 of the Constitution of India and the provisions of the Act of 1970 and the various memorandum of Settlements. Assessee submitted that there was no provision under the Act of 1970 requiring any consultation with the Labourers engaged by the contractors in the matter of entering into a contract where such contract was permitted. It is submitted that only obligation on the principal employer was to ensure due payment of wages as provided under Section 21(4) of the Act of 1970. It was submitted that there was no right in the contract labour being encouraged through the contractor to be heard before a contract was finalised or entered into. Respondent contended that the Comprehensive Service Contract at Annexure-Q dated 15.02.2019, was illegal and violative of Articles of the Constitution of India and the provisions of Act of 1970 and the Memorandum of Settlement did not protect the interest of Contract labour for coverage under ESI Act, Provident Fund Act. It was held that it was the specific case of the employees concerned that the nature of the work was perennial and that many of the workmen employed through contractors had been engaged continuously for several years. The judgment of the learned Single Judge did not lay down any proposition that the contract labourers were entitled to be heard while drawing up a contract. It was only on considering the facts and circumstances of the case in question and the contentions raised; it was ordered that the contract labourers should also be heard before Annexure ‘Q’ was finalized. While it was true that there was no provision in the Act enabling the consideration of the contentions of the contract labourers before drawing up of a contract, it was equally true that nothing precludes the hearing of the representatives of the contract labourers before a comprehensive change in the nature of the contract was entered into by the appellants, who were admittedly an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the direction issued by Single Judge would be modified to the extent that an authorized representative of the contract labourers or an authorized representative of the respondent – Union should be put on notice and heard before finalizing Annexure ‘Q’.
