LexSECRETARY, HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD versus SURESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SECRETARY, HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ... v. SURESH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. MARCH 30, 1999 B [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, Ji.j . . . . Labour Law-Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act 1970 s. lO-:Regularisation of respondent safai karamcharis-Labour court and fligh Court concurrently fi.nding that contractor was mere name lender C and there existed relationshfp oj employer and workmen between Appellant Qoaf.d dnd Resj}ondenf~-Held, on facts, there was no system of contract; neither was the Board a principal employer nor contractor licensed as such under the Act Practice and Procedure.-Constitution of India, Article 226-Writ D petitions filed by Appellant challenging Labour Court's finding that workmen ·employed by Board and not contraGtor-:--Held, finding of fact arrived at by . · La.bour Court canno! be interfered with under Article 226 unless perverse or error apparent on face o.f.record · The dispute. raised by safai k~ramcharis en:iployed by the Appellant E. Electricity Board as regards their entitlement to be absorbed permanently on comple$ion of 240 days i_n the yeilr was r:eferred to .the Conciliation Officer, Panipat culminating in an orde~ of referenc.~ by the State Government tO the Labour Court. After consideration of the factS .and the evidence taken th_c Labour Court passed an award inter alia recording that the workmen F were entitled to reinstatement with continuity of .i>er.vice with lOo/o back wages. The award of the Labour Court was challeng_ed by the appellant in writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab and Q:aryana-. The High Court disposed of the petitions flolding that there existed a relationship of e~ployer and G workmen between the appellant and the respondents: The High Court affirmed the Labour Court's finding that the _so-called contra~tor KS, who was said _to have .employed the respondents, was a mere name lender and had procured labour for the appellant from the market. It ordered reinstatement of the ~respondents with continuity of service but without back wages. H Dismissing the appeals, this Court ' " . 238 - SECY. HARYANAS-TATEE.B. v. SURESH [BANERJEE,J.] 239 HELD : 1.1. There was _a conti:actual· relationship between the Board, A on the one hand, and the employees, .on the other ;.Jhere was no .genuine contract system prevailing at the relevant time wherein the Board could have acted as only the principal employer and KS as a licens_ed contractor employing labour on his own account There was nothing to indi~te that even the BoanJ at the relevant time was registered as principal employer under the Contract B Labour (Regulation & Abolition} Act, 1970. (249-G-H) 1.2. The Act being a beneficial piece.of legislation, ought to receive the widest possible interpretation in regard to the words used and unless words were taken to their maximum amplitude, it would be a violent injustice to the framers of the law. (248-C) Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, [1981] 1 SCR 206; D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR (1983) SC 130 and Hussainbhai v. Alath Factory Tezhilali Union, (1978) LIC 1264, referred to. c Soloman v. Soloman, (1897) AC 22; Air India Statutory Corporat~on v. United Labour Union, JT (1996) 11 SC 170;· Denanath v. National D Fertilisers Ltd, JT (1991) 4 SC 413 and Gujarat Electricity Board v. Hind Mazdoor Sabha, IT (1995) 4 SC 264, referred to.· 2~ The finding of fact arrived at by the Labour Court could not be interfered with while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, unless the same was otherwise perverse or there existed an E error apparent on the face of the record. [247-D-E) · ·CIVIL.APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 11335- 11359 of 1995 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.1.95 of the Punjab & Haryana F High Court in C.W. P. Nos. 16033-16040, 16042, 16101, 14894-98, 14171, 17011-17014, 14457-60 and 14613 of 1994. Sumant Balra, Ms. Asha Bharmula, Ms. Nandini Gore and Ashok K. Mahajan for the Appellant. G Manoj Swamp for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BANERJEE, J. The doctrine of equality as enshrined in the Constitution. promised an egalitarian society and the Contract Labour (Regulation & H 240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 2 S.C.R. A Abolition) Act, 1970. is the resultant effect of such a constitutional mandate having. its due focus in that perspective. This Court in Minerva Mills' case .. ( AIR 1980 SC 1789)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.