HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD. versus KAGAJKAL THIKADAR SRAMIK UNION & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 774 · Decided: 14-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HINDU ST AN PAPER CORPORATION LTD. 
., 
• 
v. 
KAGAJKAL THI.KADAR SRAMIK UNION & ORS. 
DECEMBER 14, 2007 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT P ASA YAT AND P. SATHASIV AM, JJ.) 
Labour laws: 
c 
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Assam Rules, 1971 
-r. 25 (2)M (a), proviso-Contract labourer claiming wages similar to 
regular labourer-Assistant Labour Commissioner after examining 
nature ofjob submitted report-Labour commissioner after examining 
said report passed interim order allowing existing condition of wages 
D and other facilities to continue till further evaluation-Single judge 
of High Court dismissed writ petition-On writ appeal, Division Bench 
' ,, 
directed employer-Mill to give equal pay and other benefits to contract 
'-;,' 
labourer as that of regular employees-Correctness of-Held: Division 
Bench ought not to have ventured roving enquiry-Proper course was 
E to direct authority concerned to decide the issue. 
The respondent-union filed a representation on behalf of 
contract labourers before the Labour Court for implementation of 
Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) 
Assam Rules, 1971. The Mill did not submit its comments on the 
F said representation. Thereafter the Labour Officer, by his letter 
.-(" 
dated 9.9.1993 forwarded all the materials to the Labour 
Commissioner for final decision. On receipt of the same, the Labour 
Commissioner directed the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Silchar 
to determine the nature of work in the finishing house of the Mill by 
G regular workers and contract labourers. Pursuant to the same, the 
Assistant Labour Commissioner visited the Mill and after examining 
the nature of the job performed by the contract labourers and regular 
~ 
employees, forwarded its report. The Labour Commissioner, after 
examining the said report passed an interim order, allowing the 
H 
774 
,. 
• 
'?· 
..... r 
').. 
.. 
' 
HINDUSTANPAPERCORPORATIONLTD. v. KAGAJKAL 775 
THIKADAR SRAMIK UNION 
existing condition of wages and other facilities to continue till further 
evaluation . 
The respondent-union filed writ petition which was dismissed 
by Single Judge of High Court. On appeal, the Division Bench 
allowed the representation of the Trade Union on merits and directed 
the appellant-Mill to give equal pay and other benefits to the contract 
labourers as that ofregular employees. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The Division Bench of High Court stepped into the 
shoes of the Labour Commissioner, perused the materials from the 
records and arrived at a final conclusion on merits and directed the 
appellant Mill to provide all the benefits to the contract labourers 
on par with regular workers as ifit is the appropriate authority. The 
Division Bench ought not to have ventured roving inquiry and 
decided the issue leaving the appropriate authority in a lurch. The 
proper course is to direct the authority concerned to decide the issue 
expeditiously after affording opportunity to both parties. Though, 
the Single Judge has rightly disposed of the writ petition and in view 
of the fact that the matter has been ceased by the Labour 
Commissioner, the Division Bench committed an error in deciding 
the same on merits and issuing positive direction to the Mill as ifit 
is a proper authority. It is settled position that before sorting out the 
controversy, the authority is free to take interim arrangement 
pending final decision and in such matters it is not desirable forthe 
courts to interfere and take a decision as ifthere is no competent 
authority for the same. The question whether the work done by 
contract labour is the same or similar work as that done by the 
workmen directly employed by the principal employer of any 
establishment is a matter to be decided by the Chief Labour 
Commissioner under the proviso to Rule 25 (ii)(v)(a). 
[Para 5] (778-C·H; 779-A-D-E] 
BHEL Workers Association, Hardwar and Ors. v. Union of India 
and Ors., (1985] 1SCC630, relied on. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8601 of H 
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A 2001. 
-~ 
• 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 1.8.2000 of the Gauhati 
High Court in Writ Appeal Nu. 195 of 1996. 
Shruti Choudhary and Swati Sinha(for Fox Manda! & Co) forthe 
B Appellant. 
D.K. Agarwal, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, S.K. Singla, Anurag Pandey, 
Mihir Kr. Chaudhary and S.C. Patel for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was deli
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.