THE WORKMEN THROUGH THE CONVENER FCI LABOUR FEDERATION versus RAVUTHAR DAWOOD NASEEM

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 642 · Decided: 19-05-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
642
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
THE WORKMEN THROUGH THE CONVENER
FCI LABOUR FEDERATION
v.
RAVUTHAR DAWOOD NASEEM
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 404 of 2019)
In
(C.A No. 10511 of 2011)
MAY 19, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Contempt of Court – When not – Abolition of contract labour
system – Workers employed at depots of respondent-Corporation
as contract labourers sought regularisation – Issue referred for
adjudication – Pending references, an understanding arrived at
between the parties recorded in minutes of meeting dated.12.04.1996
– Industrial Tribunal held the workmen entitled to be regularised –
Award affirmed till Supreme Court – Workers regularised under
Direct Payment System (DPS) – Contempt petitions filed alleging
that the direction was to regularise the workers in Departmental
Labour System (DLS) and not in DPS – Held: To constitute civil
contempt it must be established that disobedience of the order is
wilful, deliberate and with full knowledge of consequences flowing
therefrom– In the present case, the issue(s) referred for adjudication
was merely for regularisation – Corporation operates four systems
of labour, DLS is one such system of engagement – Neither the
relief in the references was specific for regularisation in DLS only
nor the tribunal, the High Courts or Supreme Court was called
upon to deal with that issue specifically – Petitioners assumed that
DPS commenced only from 01.05.1996, whereas it is in existence
from 1973 – It is not a new set up created by the Corporation
pursuant to the minutes recorded on 12.04.1996 as such –
Furthermore, DLS is now a dying cadre and the policy of the
Corporation at the relevant time entailed regularisation of workmen
only under DPS – No case made out for initiating contempt action
against the Corporation and its Officers – Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 – s.10(1)(d) – Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)
Act, 1970 – s.10(1) – Labour Law.
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 642
642
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
643
Words & Expressions – Departmentalisation – Meaning of –
Explained.
Dismissing the contempt petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 To constitute civil contempt, it must be
established that disobedience of the order is wilful, deliberate
and with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. Going
by the plain text, the issue(s) referred to for adjudication was
merely for regularisation. However, the point-in-issue considered
by the Tribunal coupled with the operative part of the award, it
would at best be a case of directing the respondent Corporation
to regularise and departmentalise the concerned workmen, who
were party to the stated References. The Corporation operates
four systems of labour. The Departmental Labour System is one
such system of engagement. The other is Direct Payment System
(DPS). The third is No-Work-No-Pay System and fourth, the Mate
System. Neither the relief in the References was specific for
regularisation in Departmental Labour System only nor the
Tribunal, the Madras High Court/Kerala High Court or this Court
was called upon to deal with that issue specifically. The claim set
up by the petitioner-Union(s) was simpliciter for regularisation
of workmen who were named in the annexure(s) to the
References. The Tribunal did issue direction to regularise and
departmentalise those workmen. It is axiomatic that
departmentalisation could also be an engagement in a
Department, which could be a separate part or branch/section of
the whole Organisation. Departmentalisation is dividing an
organisation into different departments or structuring it in a
manner, which perform tasks according to the specialisations in
the organisation. It may include departments such as functional,
product, process, geographical locations, customer, divisional,
matrix, planning task force etc. As it is indisputable that the
Corporation has four systems of labour engagement including
the Direct Payment System (DPS), the petitioner-Union(s) ought
to have sought specific relief against the Corporation in that
regard. Significantly, the petitioners have assumed that the Direct
Payment System (DPS) commenced only from 1.5.1996, whereas
it is noticed from the decision of this Court in Workmen of the
Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Food Corporation of India that
THE WORKMEN THROUGH THE CONVENER FCI LABOUR FEDERATION
v. RAVUTHAR DAWOOD NASEEM
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
the Direct Payment System (DPS) is in existence fr

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