LexSTEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. AND ANR. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 996
}
A
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5846 of 2008)
B
SEPTEMBER 25, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; S.10 and Notification dated
c 15. 7. 1989 issued thereunder:
Contract labours - Issuance of Notification by State Gov-
ernment prohibiting employment of contract labours - Direc-
tion of High Court to appellant for regularization of the ser-
vices of contract labours set aside by Constitution Bench of
D the Supreme Court - Workers raising industrial dispute on
.,...
the issue of under payment - Reference to Industrial Tribunal
by State Government - Correctness of - Held: Workmen in
question employed by the Contractor - Hence question of
under payment relate to contractor- Concept of equal pay for
E equal work is not applicable to contract labourers - Question
of short payment not relevant - There was no pleading about
agreeme{lt being sham - Hence, proceedings initiated pur-
suant to Reference made by the State Government quashed.
F
In earlier round of litigation, respondent No.4, labour
Union, made a representation to Labour Commissioner
..
claiming the status of its workers as contract labourers
and also for regularization of services of its members, who
were working as contract labours with a contractor en-
gaged by the present appellant. The State Government
G of West Bengal issued a Notification on 151711989 pro-
hibiting employment of contract l_abours. In terms of the
Notification, the Union filed a writ petition for direction to
-1
the appellant for regularization of services of its members.
The petition was allowed by the Single Judge of the High
H
996
STEEL AUTH. OF INDIA LTD. & ANR. v. STATE OF
997
)
WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Court. Appeal filed theregainst by the appellant was dis- A
missed by the Division Bench of the High court. On ap-
peal, the Constitution Bench of this Court partly allowed
-t
the appeal setting aside the direction regarding absorp-
tion of the contract labours. The workers raised an ind us·
-<I.
trial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal B
:=I
by the State Government. The appellant challenged it by
filing a writ petition, which was dismissed by the High
Court. Hence the present app~al.
'i'
Appellants contended that earlier no plea regarding
. the agreement being sham or bogus was taken by the c
workers/Union and the prayer was only for absorption
.......
and to quash the Notification .
Respondent No.4-Union submitted that the Union al-
--I
ways took a stand that their work was of perennial nature D
which should be placed on equal terms with regular em-
4
ployees and, therefore, by implication it was pleaded that
I
the existing arrangement was sham; that on 15.7.1989 the
State of West Bengal prohibited contract labour because
work was of a perennial nature and significant to employ E
full ·time workmen. This shows implicit acceptance that
the use of contract labour was of camouflage; that their
grievances were essentially to the effect that the agree-
ments are nothing but sham and bogus agreements; that
-4
there has been no delay or latches; and that in view of
F-
the dech:;ion of this Court in Air India Statutory Corporation
-i
and Ors. v. United Labour Union and Ors. (1997) 9 SCC 377,
regularization of the workmen in question was permis-
sible following the Notification prohibiting contract labour~
Allowing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: 1.1 The scope of judicial review in cases of
~
reference_under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act
is very limited. (Para -5) [1002,C]
Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.
H
.4
998
SUPREME COURT REPORTS .
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
lo.
A
(2006) 12 sec 233 - referred to.
1.2 Admittedly the workmen were employed by the
contractors. So far as the question of under payment as
pleaded and categorizing it as unfair labour practice are
.
J--
B
concerned, obviously relate to the contractors but it can-
)-
not by no stretch of imagination be categorized as sham
or bogus. (Para - 7) [1006,B]
1.3 This Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Charanjit
Singh has observed that the concept of equal pay for equal
c Work is not applicable to the contract labour. In that sense
the question of short payment to the workmen in question
is not relevant. Moreover, there is no pleading about agree-
ment being sham. (PaExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.