HIMMAT SINGH AND ORS. versus L.C.I. INDIA LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 235 · Decided: 31-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2008] 2 S.C.R. 235 
HIMMAT SINGH AND ORS. 
v. 
l.C.I. INDIA LTD. AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7066 of 2001) 
JANUARY 31, 2008 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Labour laws: 
A 
B 
Principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence -
Applicability of, to industrial adjudication - Definite stand by C 
employees that they were working under contractors -
Contradictory and inconsistent plea that they were also 
workmen of the principal employer - Permissibility of - Held: 
Raising such a mutually destructive· plea is impermissible, in 
law -
Common law principles of estoppel, waiver a'(id D 
acquiescence are applicable in an industrial adjudication -
Uttar Pradesh Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) 
Rules, 1975 - Rule 25(v)(a) - Contract Labour (Regulation 
and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes 
A~1~! 
E 
The Indian Explosive Limited, engaged in 
manufacture of urea, was covered under the Contract 
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. It had many 
licenced contractor. These licenced contractors engaged 
J. 
many persons to the work contracted with them. The F 
Workers Union filed an application under Rule 25(v)(a) of 
the U.P. Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition) 
Rules, 1975. This was for the relief that the different 
persons working under the different licensed contractors 
were doing work similar to the work assigned to the G 
-..... 
workmen of the company and were entitled to the similar 
conditions of service. Proceedings were initiated. The 
Labour Commissioner allowed the application so far as 
persons engaged by the Contractor-R and one more 
235 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 
__._ 
236 
) 
A licensed contractor were concerned but for rest of the 
persons application was dismissed. This order of the 
Labour Commissioner was upheld by the High Court. 
During pendency of the proceedings under Rule 25, 
disputes were raised by the Union for the benefit of the 
B workmen engaged by the Contractor-R. The dispute was 
whether 61 labourers should be declared permanent and 
if so, then from which date and with what other 
... 
particulars. The State Government referred this industrial 
,,. 
dispute to the Labour Court under the Uttar Pradesh 
c Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court recorded 
finding in negative as well as in positive form. These 
findings were that these workmen were not appointed by 
the principal employer, that they were not working as 
~ 
helper to the fitters, that they were not paid by the 
r 
~ 
D company and were not given work order by contractor-
4' 
R. The Labour Court further held that the workmen were 
engaged in a 'contract for intermittent work and 
t 
themselves claimed to be workmen of the contractor-R in 
y~ 
proceedings under Rule 25 and got benefit under the 
r 
E same. On the basis of these findings, the Labour Court 
decided the dispute against workmen and held that they 
were not entitled to become permanent with the company. 
>-I 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that 
the High Court's approach is hyper technical and the 
F benefits intended by various beneficial statutes have not 
been kept in view. 
.A 
t
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The workmen whether before the Labour 
1-
G Court or in writ proceedings were represented by the same 
union. A trade union registered under the Trade Unions 
·Act is entitled to espouse the cause of the workmen. A 
.,.. 
definite stand was taken by the employees that they had 
i-
been working under the contractors. It would, thus, not 
H lie in their mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent 
>-
I-
t 
_ __.__ 
HIMMAT SINGH AND ORS. v. l.C.I. INDIA LTD. 
237 
AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.] 
------;--
plea that they were also the workmen of the principal A 
employer. To raise such a mutually destructive plea is 
impermissible in law. Such mu~ually destructive plea, 
should not be allowed to be raised even in an industrial 
adjudication. Common law principles of estoppel, waiver 
and acquiescence are applicable in an industrial B 
adjudication. [Para 10] [239-F, G; 240-A, B] 
Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. 
2006(12) sec 233 -
relied on. 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7066 c 
of 2001. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 17.10.1999 of 
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 59/ 
1993. 
P.K. Jain for the Appellants. 
D 
..,. ___ 
U.A. Rana, Abhishek Rao, Mis. Gagrat & Co., R.S. Suri,

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