LexBHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. versus ANIL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. v. ANIL AND ORS. NOVEMBER 7, 2006 B [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] Labour Laws: c Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Ss. 2(A), 2(1) and 6-N: Termination of services of ma/islgardners engaged by a Company through Contractor-Dispute-Labour Court passing an Award holding that since services of the workmen terminated by the Contractor without complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act, they would be re-engaged either by_ the Company or the Contractor-Affirmed by High Court-Upheld by D S~preme Court-Jn compliance, Assistant Labour Commissioner directing the Company to re-engage them through the Contractor-Challenge to- Allowed by High Court directing the Company to re-engage them in service directly-On appeal, Held: The award makes an enabling provision by directing ti Company to re-engage the workmen in service or getting them E re-engaged through the Contractor-The direction was given on the footing that the work carried by them under the control and supervision of the Company-The Labour Court did not grant status of direct employment per se because the Company has its own recognized union but it was not made party respondent and also they were neither recruited directly by the F Company-Hence, Assistant Labour Commissioner rightly directed the Company to employ them directly or through the Contractor-The Workmen may raise an industrial dispute claiming status of direct .workmen of the Company-They could also seek for abolition of Contract Labour in accordance with law-Directions issued-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. G Individual Dispute vis-a-vis Industrial Dispute-Meaning of in the context of Sections 2-A and 2-1 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Section 2K of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Doctrine: H 686 BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. v. ANIL 687 Doctrine of merger-Applicability of A Respondent Nos. 1 to 14 were working as contract labour under a Contractor and served as gardners in the appellant-Company for certain period. Their services were terminated. They moved the Conciliation Officer under Section 2-A of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 praying for directions to the Contractor to take th~m back in service with full back wages. B Ultimately, the matter was referred to the Labour Court by way of a reference under Section 4-K of the Act. The Labour Court held that respondents had worked for more than 240 days as ma/is; that work was taken from them by the contractors; and, that their services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act. The Labour Court observed that 'C the workers themselves have proceeded on the footing that they were engaged by the contractors, but the work which they performed was for the Company; that the Company had retained its control over the workers and, ther~fore, they cannot be said to be the workers only of the contractor; thus, the Company was the principal employer and the contractor was the immediate employer. D Accordingly, it directed the Company to re-employ them in their services or get them employed under the contractor. The award was challenged by the appellant-company in the High Court. Tiie High Court upheld the award of the Labour Court. Aggrieved, the appellant-Company filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court. The E Division Bench of this Court held that the services of the workmen were wrongfully terminated; that.tlley had worked for more than 240 days in twelve calendar months; that control .~as retained by the company; that they had to work under the supervision of the company and, in the circumstances, this Court refused to interfere with the award of the Labour Court. Later, the F Assistant Labour Co_mmissioner (ALC) passed an order directing the appellant-Company lo re-engage them through the contractors in compliance with the award. Aggrieved, the workmen filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court set aside the order of the ALC and directed the appellant- Company to re-engage them in service directly. Hence, the present appeal. ; The appellant-company contended that the doctrine of merger has limited application to the facts of the present case; that since the Division Bench of this Court upheld the award, it had confirmed the operative part of the award of the Labour Court, whereby the appellant-Company was directed 0 to re-empl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.