BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. versus MAHENDRA PRASAD JAKHMOLA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 504 · Decided: 20-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
504
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  4  S.C.R.
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD.
v.
MAHENDRA PRASAD JAKHMOLA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1799-1800 of  2019)
FEBRUARY 20, 2019
[R. F. NARIMAN AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970:
Notification dated 24.4.1990 issued under the  Act, 1970 – Exemption
from its applicability to BHEL – Held: BHEL, insofar as their UP
operations are concerned, in Haridwar, in particular, are exempted
from the applicability of the Notification – Labour laws.
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970:
Termination of worker – Award of reinstatement by Labour Court –
Labour Court based its finding on direct relationship between the
parties on the gate passes issued by the appellant, and on a
concession made by the appellant’s representative – Held: Evidence
showed that the gate passes were issued only at the request of the
contractor for the sake of security and safety and also from
administrative point of view – This evidence was missed by Labour
Court when it arrived at a conclusion that a direct relationship ought
to be inferred from this fact – Moreover there was nothing to show
that the work performed by the contract labour was ordinarily part
of the industry of appellant – Labour Court’s award is perverse
and is set aside in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.226 –
Constitution of India – Art.226 – Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947.
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970:
Whether employed labourers were direct or contractual employees
– Held: Principal employer cannot be said to control and supervise
the work of the employee merely because he directs the workers of
the contractor ‘what to do’ after the contractor assigns/ allots the
employee to the principal employer – In the instant case, evidence
led on behalf of appellant showed that no wages were ever been
paid to workers by appellant – Workers themselves admitted that
there was no appointment letter, provident fund number or wage
slip from appellant insofar as they were concerned – Further, it was
[2019] 4  S.C.R. 504
                                                   504
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
505
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 appellant – Therefore, 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 the instant
case ‘sham’  – Thus, Labour court erred in holding that the alleged
contract with the contractor was “sham”.
Concession: Where a question is a mixed question of fact and
law, a concession made by a lawyer or his authorised representative
at the stage of arguments, cannot preclude the party for whom such
person appears from re-agitating the point in appeal – Concession
on mixed questions of fact and law cannot decide cases as the
evidence as a whole has to be weighed and inferences drawn
therefrom.
Words and phrases: Expression ‘control and supervision –
Meaning of, in the context of contract labour – Labour laws.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The Award of the Labour Court sets down
notification dated 24.04.1990 that was issued under the 1970 Act.
A reading of the said notification makes it clear that the appellant,
insofar as their UP operations are concerned, in Haridwar, in
particular, are exempted from the said notification.  Despite this,
however, the Labour Court went on to apply the said notification,
which would clearly be perverse.  The Labour Court based its
finding on direct relationship between the parties only on the
gate passes being issued by the appellant, and on a concession
made by the appellant’s representative. The said gate passes
were issued, as has been stated by the appellant’s witness, only
at the request of the contractor for the sake of safety and also
from the administrative point of view.  The idea was security, as
otherwise any person could enter the precincts of the factory.
This evidence was missed by the Labour Court when it arrived
at a conclusion that a direct relationship ought to be inferred
from this fact alone. [Paras 10-11][513-B-F]
1.2 Where a question is a mixed question of fact and law, a
concession made by a lawyer or his authorised representative at
the stage of arguments cannot preclude the party for whom such
BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. v. MAHENDRA
PRASAD JAKHMOLA & ORS.
A

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.