REFERENCE

ISSUE RAISED/FACTS

HELD

1

K BUTCHI REDDY VS CENTRAL ADM TRIBUNAL 

2001(89) FLR 972

1

IF GOVERNMENT ISSUES AN ORDER BANNING CONTRACT LABOUR, ARE CONTRACT WORKMEN DEPLOYED FOR WORK AFTER THE DATE OF BAN ELIGIBLE FOR REGULARIZATION OR ABSORPTION.

1

2.

AS CATEGORICALLY LAID DOWN BY THE  SUPREME COURT IN AIR INDIA CASE [1997 (76) FLR 119] ONLY WORKMEN ON ROLLS ON DATE OF NOTIFICATION ARE ELIGIBLE FOR ABSORPTION.

CONTRACT WORKMEN ENGAGED AFTER BAN DATE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR  ABSORPTION.

[THIS ABSORPTION WILL NOW NOT BE REQUIRED IN VIEW OF THE AIR INDIA JUDGMENT HAVING BEEN OVER-RULES IN THE SAIL CASE (2001(2)LLJ 1087 W.E.F. 30.08.2001

2

FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA VS SHYMLAL K CHATTERJEE

 [2000 (87) FLR 677 SC]

1

HAVE CASUAL WORKERS OF CONTRACTORS DOING SIMILAR JOB AS DONE BY REGULAR WORKMEN OF PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER ELIGIBLE FOR PARTTY OF WAGES?

1.

2.

AS PER RULE 25(2)(V)(A) UNDER THE CONTRACT LABOUR ACT 1970, CONTRACT CAUSAL  WORKMEN ARE ELIGIBLE FOR PARTTY OF WAGES

SUCH CONTRACT WORKMEN SHOULD BE GIVEN ATLEAST THE MINIMUM WAGES PAYABLE TO CLASS-IV EMPLOYEES OF THE ESTABLISHMENT.

3.

HARI SHANKAR SHARMS VS ARTIFICIAL LIMB MFG CORPN [2002 I LLJ 237 SC DB] OR [2002 (92) FLR 14]

1

2

CAN STATUTORY CONTRACT CANTEEN WORKMEN CLAIM BENEFITS & STATUS OF REGULAR WORKMEN ESPECIALLY IN VEIW OF THE SUPREME COURT RULING IN PARIMAL CHANDRA RAHA VS LIC CASE [1995 II LL] 339 SC]

1

2

A LARGER [THREE JUDGE] BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE EARLIER JUDGMENT IN THE IPCL CASE [1999 II LLJ 696 SC] HAS ALREADY HELD THAT THEY CAN AT BEST CLAIM STATUS ONLY OF A WORKER UNDER THE FACTORIES ACT.

IN THIS JUDGMENT HELD THAT UNLESS THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER IS EXERCISING SUPERVISORY OR ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL OVER THE CANTEEN WORKMEN, THERE IS NOTHING IN ANY LAW WHICH ENABLES THEM TO CLAIM THE STATUS OR BENEFITS OF REGULAR WORKMEN [SEE ALSO A SIMILAR RULING OF SC IN WERNER LTD VS KARNATAKA 2001 I LLJ 763] MERELY BECAUSE THERE WAS A CLAUSE THAT THE NEW CONTRACTOR SHOULD ENGAGE THE WORKMEN OF THE OLD CONTRACTOR, THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE IN THE STATUS OF THE CANTEEN WORKMEN. 

4

TELCO CONVOY DRIVERS SANGH VS PRESIDING OFFICER INDL TRIBUNAL RANCHI [2001 (4) LLN 1084 HC JHAR SB]

1

2.

3

4.

TELCO TRUCKS WERE DELIVERED TO THE REGIONAL DEPOTS THROUGH CONTRACT DRIVERS AND SUCH DRIVERS WERE ALSO GIVEN  MEDICAL BENEFIT BY TELCO

THESE CONTRACT DRIVERS DEMANDED ABOLITION AND REGULARIZATION BY TELCO

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL BASED ON FACTS HELD THAT THE WORK OF THESE  CHASIS  DRIVERS IS NOT A CONTRACT WORK SO AS TO ATTRACT THE MISCHBIEF OF CONTRACT LABOUR ACT.

THE UNION CHALLENGED THIS DECISION IN HIGH COURT.

1

2.

3.

THE ULTIMATE CONTROL IN THE SELECTION AND DEPLOYMENT OF THESE DRIVERS WAS NOT WITH TELCO BUT WITH TTCA (CONTRACTOR)

HIGH COURT HELD THAT THERE IS NO GROUNDS FOR INTERFERING WITH  RULING  OF I NDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL DISALLOWING THE DEMAND FOR ABSORPTION.

NOT ENTITLED TO ABSORPTION.

5

STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD Vs NATIONAL UNION WATER FRONT WORKERS

[2001(2) LLJ 1087 [SC  CONST.BEN CH]

2001 (4) LLN 135 OR

2001 (91) FLR 182

1

IS THE THREE JUDGE SC RULING IN AIR INDIA CASE [1997 (I) LLJ 1113] ON ‘AUTOMATIC ABSORPTION’ AND ‘APPROPRIATE GOVERNEMNT’ THE CORRECT LAW?

1

2

3.

4.

5.

OVER RULING THE AIR INDIA CASE HELD:

THERE WILL BE NO AUTOMATIC ABSORPTION FROM DATE OF THIS RULING (30.08.2001)

THE’ APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT’ UNDER CONTRACT LABOUR ACT 1970 AND ID ACT 1947 TOBE THE SAME.

HIGH COURTS NOT TO INTERFERE OR ENTERTAIN CASES DEMANDING ABSORPTION. SUCH CASES TO BE EXAMINED ONLY BY TRIBUNALS & LABOUR COURTS.

IF THE TRIBUNALS OR LABOUR COURTS FIND THAT THE CONTRACTS ARE  SHAM  CONTRACT  WORKMEN WILL HAVE RIGHT  TO  CLAIM REGULARIZATION.

THERE WILL BE NO ABSORPTION MERELY BY NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION – 7 (REGISTRATION)OR SECTION 12 (LICENSING).IT WILL INVOLVE ONLY THE PENAL CONSEQUENCES LISTED UNDER SECTION 23&24

6

PR CATERING Vs  STALE OF BIHAR

2002 (1) LLJ 227 [HC-PAT-DB

1

2

THE  CONTRACT  LABOUR INSPECTION  AUTHORITIES INITIATED  ACTION  AGAINST THE RAILWAY  CAR  OPERATOR FOR NON-COMPLIANCE  WITH PROVISIONS OF THE CONTRACT LABOUR ACT

THE RAILWAY LICENCE PANTRY OPERATOR CONTENDED  THAT  HE IS NOT CONTRACT LABOUR ACT ISNOT APPLICABLE TO HIM

1

2

3.

PETITIONER IS ONLY A LICENCE

HE DOES NOT SATISFY THE DEFINITION OF CONTRACTOR NOR DOES THE PANTRY CAR  SATISFY THE DEFINITION OF ESTABLISHMENT.

HENCE CONTRACT LABOUR ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PANTRY CAR OPERATOR WHO IS A MERE LICENCE OF THE RAIWAYS.