PANKI THERMAL STATION AND ANR. versus VIDYUT MAZDOOR SANGTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 2 S.C.R. 445 · Decided: 11-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 2 S.C.R. 445 
PANKI THERMAL STATION AND ANR. 
A 
V. 
VIDYUT MAZDOOR SANGTHAN AND ORS. 
Civil Appeal Nos. 885-886 of 2009 
FEBRUARY 11, 2009 
B 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.) 
-1. 
.\ 
l).P Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 
1975 - Rule 25(2)(V)(a): 
c 
Regularisation of workmen -
Orders of Lab.our 
Commissioner in favour of workmen - Affirmed by High Court 
-
On appeal,. Held: Since the impugned order does not 
address the basic issues, matter remitted to Labour 
Commissioner to decide the matter afresh. 
D. 
Regularisation order by Labour Commissioner and 
upheld by the High Court has been challenged in the 
appeal. 
Partly allowing the appeals and remitting the matters E 
to the Labour Commissioner, the Court 
HELD: 1. A bare reading of the provision viz. Rule 
" 
25(2)(v)(a) of the U.P. Contract Labour (Regulation and 
1. 
Abolition) Rules, 1975 makes the position clear that in 
cases where the workmen employed by the contractor F 
perform the same or similar kind of work as employed 
directly by the principal employer of the establishment the 
wages rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions 
of service of the workmen of the contractor shall be the 
same as are applicable to principal employer. In case of G 
.-( 
disagreement with regard to the type of work the same 
shall be decided by the Commissioner.[Para 11] [450-A, B] 
Secretery, H.S.E.B. v. Suresh and Ors. 1999 (3) SCC 601 
445 
H 
446 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
and BHEL Workers Association, Hardwar and Ors. v. Union of 
India and Ors. 1985 FLR (50) 205 - referred to. 
2. The High Court's judgment is a bundle of 
confusions. In the Commissioner's order there is no 
discussion as to how the Commissioner arrived at the 
B conclusion about similarity of work. The Commissioner 
ought to have considered on the basis of pleadings and 
materials placed by the parties. The Commissioner was 
required to arrive at a conclusion that the workmen had 
been performing the same duties as are being performed 
C 
by regular employees. The Commissioner's order does 
not reflect that these aspects were considered. [Para 13] 
[450-E, F] 
3. As neither the Labour Court nor the High Court 
addressed to the basic issues, the impugned judgment 
of the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court cannot 
D be maintained and are set aside. The matter is remitted to 
the Commissioner to decide the matter afresh. [Para 14] 
[451-D, E] 
E 
' 
Case Law Reference 
1999 (3) sec so1 
1985 FLR (50) 205 
referred to 
referred to 
Para 4 
Para 4 
CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CivilAppeal Nos. 885-
~ 
886 of 2009 
,t .. 
F 
From the Judgement and Order dated 09.04.2007 of the 
G 
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 
47303 of1999 and C.M.W.P. No. 13679 of 2000. 
R.N. Trivedi, Pradeep Mishra, for the Appellant. 
Bharat Sangal, for the Respondent. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
1. Leave granted. 
H 
2. This is second journey of the appellants to this Court. A 
PANKI THERMAL STATION AND ANR. V. VIDYUT 
447 
MAZDOOR SANGTHAN AND ORS.[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT J.] 
-f 
Writ Petition No.47303of1999 was filed by the employers who 
A 
are the present appellants questioning correctness of the order 
dated 6.8.1999 passed by the Labour Commissioner (in short 
the 'Commissioner') under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the U.P. Contract 
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975 (in short the 
'Rules'). The workmen had challenged the award dated 
B 
30.7.1999 and Writ Petition No.47303 of 1999 was disposed 
of by the Hi~ Court by order dated 11th July, 2003. The present 
f . 
appellants challenged the judgment of the High Court in Civil 
• 
Appeal No.1734 of 2004. By judgment dated 15.9.2005, this 
Court set aside the order holding that the High Court ought to c 
have taken both the writ petitions together as the issue was the 
same. The High Court by the impugned judgment held that the 
award of the Industrial Tribunal (3), U.P., Kanpur (in short the 
'Tribunal') dated 30.7.1999 did not require any interference and 
the writ petition filed by the appellants deserves to be dismissed. 
D 
The Tribunal had answered the reference in the following terms: 
"On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence 
on record my conclusion to the reference is that the action 
of the employer No.1 in not regularizing the services of 
118 employees mentioned in the reference is justified and 
E 
va
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.