HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. versus ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 111 · Decided: 14-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 5 S.C.R. 111 
~ 
HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. 
A 
v. 
ASSOCIATION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 6410 of 2000) 
MARCH 14, 2008 
B 
! 
(TARUN CHATTERJEE AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and 
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: 
Schedule IV- Item 9- Unfair labour practice by Company c 
-Complaint that Company treating its canteen workmen as 
contract workmen - Workmen of statutory canteen run by 
Company through contractor- Continuing for tong time inspite 
of change of several contractors - No fr.esh appointment letters 
issued by successive contractors - Activities of canteen D 
1 
workmen, their suitability to work, physical fitness etc. controlled 
.., 
by Company - Company providing rent free premises with 
free water, electricity, furniture, crockery, cooking utensils for 
canteen - Payment of wages, PF contribution etc. of canteen 
workmen reimbursed/paid by Company - . Quality, quantity, 
E 
rates and manner of supply of food articles laid down by 
Company - HELD: Industrial Court rightly concluded that 
contract was nothing but paper agreement - Even though 
canteen was shown to be run by contractor, ultimate control 
and supervision was of Company - Company committed 
F 
.., 
unfair labour practice - Industrial Court rightly directed the 
J.-
Company to absorb and make canteen employees as 
employees of Company and grant them wages and benefits 
as admissible to the last category of unskilled workmen of the · 
Company - Direction of Industrial Court to be complied with : G 
expeditiously. 
The respondent-Workers Union filed a complaint 
before the Industrial Court alleging unfair Labour practice 
by the appellant-Company in terms of Item 9 of SchedUle 
111 
H 
112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and 
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. It was 
stated in the complaint that the workmen working in the 
canteen maintained by the Company in terms of s.46 of 
the Factories Act were deprived by the Company of 
B permanency and other benefits as applicable to other 
permanent workmen of the Company; that the company 
was illegally treating the 27 workmen working in the 
canteen for a long period as contract workmen; that the 
contracts were sham, arranged from time to time merely 
c for the purpose of avoiding to give the canteen workmen 
the benefits of permanency and other benefits; that the 
contractors kept on changing, but most of the workmen 
of the canteen were continuing for more than 10 years 
without fresh appointment orders on change of 
0 contractors. It was thus stated that the company had been 
engaging in unfair labour practice by treating its workers 
as workmen on contract. The stand of the company was 
that the complaint was time barred; that the workmen 
concerned being workmEm of the contractor, could not 
claim permanent status a:s workers of the company; that 
E dispute being related to contract labour and since the 
complainant-Union had approached the appropriate 
authority under the Contract Labour (Regulation and 
Abolition) Act, 1991, the complaint under the 1971 Act 
before the Industrial Court was liable to be dismissed on 
F the principle of res judicata. It was further contended on 
behalf of the Company that the dispute could be resolved 
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the complaint 
under the 1971 Act, was not maintainable. 
G 
The Industrial Court held that the Company 
committed unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule 
IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions 
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. It directed 
the company to absorb and make the canteen employees 
as permanent employees of the company and grant them 
H 
y 
1 
.... 
~ 
HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. v. ASSOCIATION OF 
113 
ENGINEERING WORKERS 
t 
... ~ 
wages and benefits as admissible to the last category of A 
unskilled workmen. The Company approached the High 
Court which declined to interfere. On the petition for 
special leave filed by the Company, the Supreme Court 
directed the High Court to decide the matter on merits. 
The High Court accordingly heard the matter afresh and 
B 
'y 
confirmed the order passed by the Industrial Court. 
In the instant appeal filed by the Company, the 
questions for consideration before the Court were: (i) 
whether the Industrial Court was justified in issuing 
direction to absorb all the employees of the canteen in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.