1

VST INDUSTRIES

Vs

VST WORKERS UNION

2001(88)FLR 548 [SC]

WHEN WILL STATUTORY CANTEEN CONTRACT EMPLOYEES HAVE TO BE TREATED AS REGULAR EMPLOYEES

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

IN THE IPCL CASE [1999 (83) FLR 75] THE SUPREME COURT HAD HELD THAT EMPLOYEES OF STATUTORY CANTEENS ARE TO BE TREATED AS EMPLOYEES COMING UNDER THE FACTORIES ACT.

SUCH CONTRACT CANTEEN EMPLOYEES WILL GET THE STATUS OF REGULAR EMPLOYEES FOR OTHER ACTS IF THEY SATISFY THE FOLLOWING TEST PRESCRIBED BY THE SUPREME COURT

TEST

HAS THE CANTEEN BEEN THERE SINCE INCEPTION OF THE FACTORY ?

HAVE THE WORKMEN CONTINUED EVEN WHEN CONTRACTORS CHANGED ?

HAVE THE FURNITURE FIXTURES, FUEL, UTENSILS ETC BEEN PROVIDED BY THE COMPANY ?

ARE THE WAGES OF CANTEEN WORKERS REIMBURSED BY THE COMPANY

IS THE COMPANY OR ITS AGENT SUPERVISING OR CONTROLLING OR GIVING DIRECTIONS FOR THE RUNNING OF THE CANTEEN ?

IS THE CONTRACTOR ONLY A MERE AGENT OF THE COMPANY AND HE WORKS UNDER COMPANY'S DIRECTIONS ?

DO THE CANTEEN WORKMEN HAVE THE PROTECTION OF CONTINUOUS EMPLOYMENT IN THE ESTABLISHMENT ?

2

INDIAN OIL CORPORATION

Vs

I.O.C.M.C.W UNION

2001(88) FLR 850 [HC-CAL]

1

2

ASSUMING THE JOB GIVEN ON CONTRCT IS OF PERENNIAL NATURE WHAT ARE THE COURSE OF ACTION OPEN TO CONTRACT WORKMEN OR THEIR UNION ?

CAN THEY RAISE A DISPUTE FOR REGULARISATION AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER AND PARALLELY PETITION THE GOVERNMENT TO ISSUE AN ORDER FOR ABOLITION OF CONTRACT SYSTEM

1

2

3

CONTRACT WORKMEN CANNOT PARALLELY SEEK ABOLITION AND ALSO RAISE AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE AGAINST PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER

THEY CAN EITHER PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR ABOLITION [IN WHICH CASE THEY ARE ADMITTING THAT THERE IS A PROPER CONTRACT SYSTEM]  

OR  

THEY CAN CONTEND THAT THERE IS NO PROPER CONTRACT AND THE CONTRACT IS SHAM OR BOGUS AND RAISE AN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER

3

MAHARASHTRA GEN.KAMGAR UNION

Vs

INDIAN GUM INDUSTRY LTD

2000(86)

 FLR 533

[HC-BOM]

1

2

UNDER SECTION 25(O) OF I.D.ACT ANY INDUSTRIAL ESTABLISHMENT EMPLOYING MORE THAN 100 WORKMEN MUST TAKE GOVERNMENT'S PERMISSION FOR DECLARING CLOSURE

IN COMPUTING THE NUMBER 100 MUST THE NUMBER OF CONTRACT WORKMEN DEPLOYED IN THE ESTABLISHMENT ALSO BE INCLUDED ?

1

2

IF THE CONTRACT IS A VALID CONTRACT AND THERE IS NO GROUNDS TO HOLD THE CONTRACT AS A SHAM CONTRACT AS HELD BY SUPREME COURT IN THE FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA CASE [1985 (50) FLR 142] THE CONTRACT WORKMEN CANNOT BE TREATED AS WORKMEN OF THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYER FOR PURPOSES OF THE ID ACT

SINCE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF WORKMEN COMES BELOW 100 WHEN CONTRACT WORKMEN ARE EXCLUDED CHAPTER VA [Sn 25(O)] OF I.D.ACT IS NOT ATTRACTED AND NO PERMISSION IS REQUIRED FOR CLOSURE.

4

L&T McNIEL LTD

Vs

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

2001(88) FLR 1030-[SC]

1

2

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ISSUED A NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 10(I) OF THE CONTRACT LABOUR ACT ABOLISHING CONTRACT LABOUR IN SWEEPING AND SCAVENGING IN ALL INDUSTRIES IN THE STATE

IS THIS ORDER COVERING ALL INDUSTRIES UNDER ONE ORDER VALID ?

1

2

3

4

AS PER CONTRACT LABOUR ACT GOVERNMENT HAS TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE UNDER THE ACT FOR ABOLISHING CONTRACT LABOUR

BEFORE PROHIBITION GOVERNMENT SHOULD CONSIDER THE RECOMM-ENDATIONS OF THE BOARD AND ALSO EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOUR PARAMETERS PRESCRIBED UNDER 10(2)(a)(b) (c) & (d).

THE SUPREME COURT DID NOT FIND ANY RECORDS TO SHOW THAT THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS WERE COMPLIED WITH

COURT ALSO FELT A COMMON NOTIFICAITION CUTTING ACROSS ALL KINDS OF INDUSTRIES AND ESTABLISHMENTS MAY NOT SATISFY THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS.