EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF SUDAMDIH COLLIERY OF M/S BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. versus THEIR WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY RASHTRIYA COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 391 · Decided: 16-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.,, 
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF 
A 
SUDAMDIH COLLIERY OF MIS BHARAT COKING COAL LTD. 
V. 
THEIR WORKMEN REPRESENTED BY RASHTRIYA COLLIERY 
MAZDOOR SANGH 
JANUARY 16, 2006 
B 
[ARIJlT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
labour laws: 
c 
Co/1/ract labour-Absorption of-Courts below held them as workmen 
of principal employer-management-On appeal, matter remitted to High Court 
to consider aji-esh in view of Conslitution Bench decision in Steel Authori~v's 
case since when High Court decided the issue, Air India's case held the field-
·" 
Further, issue whether contractor was a camouflage, omission of names of D 
~ 
workmen in reference filed and purported settlement between management 
and workmen not considered in proper perspective-Industrial Disputes Act, 
1947-Seclion 10. 
Management of Coal Company denied employment to its workers. 
Disputes were referred to the Industrial Tribunal. Tribunal held them to E 
be workmen of the principal employer-Coal Company. Both the Single 
Judge and the Division Bench of High Court upheld the order. Division 
Bench of High Court relied on the case of *Air India Statutory Corporation 
~ 
etc. v. United labour Union and Ors. and held that where the engagement 
of workmen by a contractor is a camouflage to conceal the real relationship F 
between. principal employer and workmen, then also the workmen 
employed through unlicensed contractor are liable to be treated as 
workmen of the principal employer. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant-Management contended that in view of the Constitution 
Bench judgment of this Court in Slee/ Authority of India ltd. and Ors. v. G 
National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors. case that issuance of 
notification prohibiting eRlflloyment of contract labour under section 10(1) 
-{ 
of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 does not 
imply concept of automatic absorption of contract labour by the principal 
employer, order of High Court cannot be sustained; that the dispute was 
391 
H 
392 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] I S.C.R. 
A raised after about a decade; that the management and workmen had 
arrived at a settlement; and that in the reference names of the workmen 
were not given, thus, the workmen were not entitled to any relief. 
B 
Allowing the appeals and remitting the matter to the High Court, 
the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Tribunal and High Court did not consider the factual 
position in the background of the legal position. At the point of time when 
the matter was decided *Air India Statutory Corporation etc. v. United 
labour Union and Ors. case held the field. But in view of the 
pronouncement of the Constitution Bench in **Steel Authority of India ltd 
C and Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors. case the matter 
needs to be re-examined by High Court. Further, there was no definite 
finding by tribunal and/or High Court that the appellant had adopted a 
camouflage. Mere reference to certain observations of this Court would 
not suffice. Furthermore, High Court did not consider the effect of 
D omitting the names of the claimants whose cause was being espoused by 
the Union in the proper perspective and also the position regarding 
purported settlement. In these circumstances, the matter is remitted to the 
High Court to consider the matter afresh within a period of six months 
from the date of allotment of the matter. 1399-C-G I 
E 
*Air India Statutory Corporation etc. v. United labour Union and Ors., 
AIR (1997) SC 645; Secretary. Haryana State Electricity Boardv. Suresh & 
Ors. etc .. JT 11999] 2 SCC 435; **Steel Authority of India ltd. and Ors. v. 
National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors .. 12001] 7 SCC I; Nitinkumar 
Nathalal Joshi and Ors. v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation ltd and Ors .. 
120021 3 SCC 433; Nedungadi Bank ltd v. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors .. 
F 120001 2 SCC 455 and SM. Nilajkar and Ors. v. Telecom District Manager. 
Karnataka, 120031 4 SCC 27, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1902-1903 
of 2000. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.5.99 of the High Court of Patna 
in LP.A. Nos. 424 and 425/98 (R). 
Ajit Kumar Sinha for the Appellants. 
S.B. Upadhyay, Ms. K.L. Das and Shiv Mangal Sharma for the 
H Respondents. 
J 
.. 
" 
_.J 
\1ANAGEMENT OF SUDAMDIH COLLIERY"· RASHTRIY A COLLIERY MAZDOOR SANGH (PASAY AT. J J J 93 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. Appellant calls in question the legality of the 
judgment rendered by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.