SHRI YOVAN, INDIA CEMENTS EMPLOYEES UNION AND ANR. versus THE MANAGEMENT OF INDIA CEMENTS LTD. AND ORS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 381 · Decided: 15-10-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SHRI YOVAN, INDIA CEMENTS EMPLOYEES 
UNION AND ANR. 
v. 
THE MANAGEMENT OF INDIA CEMENTS LTD. AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 15, 1993 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, CJ. ANDS. MOHAN JJ.) 
A 
B 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 s. JO(J)(C)-Wliether the State Govern-
ment of Tamil Nadu is the appropriate authority in relation to the cement C 
industry so as to make the notification under section JO(l)(C) of the Act 
referring a dispute between the employees union and the Management of India 
Cement to the Labour Court~eld-Yes. 
The Respondent No. 1 and the Respondents Nos. 3 to 14, who are of 
the Contractors emplyed by the First Respondent, had terminated sen-Ices D 
of 300 and odd workers who claimed to have worked continuously for a 
period of over 10 years. These workers were neither paid the same wages 
nor allowed the same working conditions as were available to the workmen 
directly employed by the first Respondent. 
The Appellant-Union of the Workmen employed with the first E 
respondent, raised demand to make contract labour permanent as man· 
dated by law by removing the intermediary contractors which was rejected. 
Therefore, a dispute was raised and conciliation proceedings Initiated but 
failed. On consideration of the failure report and the other relevant facts, 
the Govt. of Tamil Nadu issued a Notification on 23rd Sept. 1987. Under F 
Section 10(1) (C) of the Act stating that the dispute between the Union and 
the Management of the India Cements Contractors relating to non· 
employment of 300 workers be referred for adjudication to the Labour 
Court, Madurai. Before the Labour Court the Respondent No. 1 raised a 
preliminary contention that the referrence by the State Government is bad 
since the Appropriate Authority in relatio.n to the Cement industry is the. G 
Central Government. 
The Labour Court upheld the contention of the l'?irst Respondent 
and found that the Cement industry being a controlled industry under the 
Act, the reference by the State Government was bad. 
H 
381 
382 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The appellant came in appeal by special Leave. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : In view of the Notification dt. 8.12.1977 issued by the Union 
of India under Section 39 of the Act and the stand taken by the Union of 
B India in their Counter Affidavit, both the Central and the State Govern· 
merits are Appropriate Governments under the Act and both have concur-
rent jurisdiction in relation to Cement Industry, except in case of Mines 
and quarries forming part of the Cement Industry. That being so, the 
notification issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu dt. 23.1.1986 is a 
C valid notification. [383FH; 386C] 
CIVIL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION: qvil Appeal No. 5454 of 
1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.91 of the Principal Labour 
D Court, Madurai in I.A. No. 189/91 in I.D. No. 56/87. 
E 
F 
P.S. Khera for the Appellant. 
Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MOHAN, J. Leave granted. Delay condoned. 
The appellant is a union of workmen employed in the establishments 
of Respondent No.1 at Sankarnagar in the State of Tamil Nadu. Respon-
dent No. 1 is a company with majour financial input by various financial 
institutions in the country. Respondent Nos. 3 to 14 are contractors who · 
were employed by the Resondent No. 1 to do various jobs. At the relevant 
time these respondents employed 300 and odd workers. The services of 
these workers were terminated. They claimed to have worked continously 
for a period of over 10 years. Inasmuch as they were neither paid the same 
G wages nor were they allowed the same working conditions allowed by the 
principal employer, namely, Resondent No. 1 to its own workmen. The 
·appellant union raised demands to make contract labour permanent as 
mandated by law by removing the intermediary contractors. The demands 
were not complied with. Therefore, a dispute was raised. Conciliation 
H pro~ 
took place on various dates. Ultimately on 22.9.86 a failure 
YOVANv. C.EMP.[MOHAN,J.) 
383 
report by Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madras, was submitted. On A 
consideration of the report and the other relevant facts a notification was 
issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu on 23rd September, 1987 under 
Section 10(1)( c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred 
to as the Act) that the dispute between the union and the management of 
India Cements contractors relating to non-employment of 300 wor

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