M/S. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICAL LTD. versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 625 · Decided: 21-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICAL LTD. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
JULY 21, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATILANDD.M. DHARMADHIKARI,JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws: 
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Termination of services-
Industrial dispute-Company pleading that workmen not employed by them- C 
Labour Court holding Company to be principal employer and directing re-
employment of workmen-High Court upholding the same-Justification of-
Held: Applying test of control, evidence on record and facts and circumstances 
of the case, workmen under direct employment, supervision and control of the 
Company-Thus, concurrent finding of courts below justified. 
D 
Gardeners were engaged to look after the lawns and parks inside 
the factory premises and the campus of the residential colony of the 
appellants through an agency. Their services were terminated and they 
raised an industrial dispute. Appellant pleaded that since they did not 
employ the gardeners, they were not liable to re-instate them or pay E 
compensation. Labour court held that the appellant was the principal 
employer and passed the award directing re-employment and payment of 
compensation for non-compliance of Section 6-N of Uttar Pradesh 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. High Court upheld the order. Hence the 
present appeals. 
F 
Appellant contended that the findings recorded by the Labour Court 
as upheld by the High Court are perverse being contrary to the evidence 
placed on record; that the High Court committed a serious error in 
applying test of control in relation to the work of the respondent-workmen 
having regard to the definition of 'employer' in Section 2(i)(iv) of the Act G 
as the work of the respondent-workmen was not part of the industry; and 
that the respondents-workmen had not worked for 240 days to complain 
violation of Section 6-N of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
625 
H 
626 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
HELO: I.I. The definition of'employer' given in Section 2(i)(iv) of the 
Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is an inclusive definitio.n. The 
true test of control is that where workmen-labour is engaged to produce goods 
or services for the business of another, the other is employer. In the instant 
case, the work of the respondents-workmen is not totally disassociated in fact 
B 
between them and the appellant to say that they were not employees of the 
,. 
appellant The respondents-workmen were employed with the appellant to work 
in their premises and which fact is found established after removing the mask 
or facade of make~believe employment under the contractor, the appellant 
"' 
cannot escape its liability. Furthermore, the other evidence and facts and 
circumstances of the case supports such a finding. Also the appellant did not 
c produce the records alleging that they were not available which led to drawing 
adverse inference against them. (631-0, B; 632-DI 
1.2. Considering the evidence, the facts and circumstances of the case 
and findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court, the High Court held 
that the workmen were under the direct employment, supervision and 
D control of the appellant. It did not find any illegality and irregularity in 
the award passed by the Labour Court so as to interfere with it exercising 
the writ jurisdiction. Hence it cannot be said that concurrent findings 
recorded by the Labour Court and the High Court that the workmen were 
to be treated as the employees of the appellant are either perverse or based 
E on no evidence or untenable at all.1629-D-E; 630-A; 632-EI 
Hussainbhai Calicut v. The Alath Factory Thozhilali Union, Kozhikode 
and Ors., (19781 4 SCC 257 and Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. v. 
National Union Waterfront Workers and Ors., 120011 7 SCC 116, referred 
to. 
F 
2. It also does not appear that any contention was urged before the 
High Court that the respondents-workmen did not work for more than 
240 days in 12 calendar months. Be that as it may, in view of the finding 
of fact recorded by the Labour Court as upheld by the High Court that 
the respondents-workmen worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar 
G months, there is no good reason to take a different view. 1632-FI 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2459-2461 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.2.1999 of the Allahabad High 
""
H Court in C.M.W.P. Nos. 2109/97, 41787/98 and 1654of1999. 
BHARATHEAVYELECTRICALLTD.v. STATE(PATIL.J.] 
627 
Sudhir Chandra, Ms.

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