U.P. RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN BOARD & ANR. versus UTTAR PRADESH VIDYUT MAZDOOR SANGH

Citation: [2009] 15 S.C.R. 587 · Decided: 04-11-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 587 
. ->-
U.P. RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN BOARD & ANR. 
A 
v. 
UTTAR PRADESH VIDYUT MAZDOOR SANGH 
Civil Appeal No. 1989 of 2002 
NOVEMBER 4, 2009 
B 
[ D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
.... 'f 
Uttar Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulation and 
Abolition) Rules, 1975 - Rule 25(2)(v)(a) - Contract labour 
engaged in temporary filtration plant of power project through c 
contractor - Application ulr. 25(2)(v)(a) seeking wages at rate 
admissible to regular employees working in the main plant -
Allowed by Labour Commissioner as well as High Court -
\ 
Interference with - Held: Labour Commissioner as well as 
... 
High Court did not consider the nature of duties of the staff it:J D 
--1 
the two categories, degree of skill and dimensions of the job 
for concluding about the similarity of work - It did not advett 
to the evidence and material placed before it - Thus, matter 
remitted back to Labour Commissioner for fresh consideration 
The question which arose for consideration in thi~ E 
( 
-{ 
appeal is whether the Labour Commissioner as well as 
J 
the High Court were justified in holding that the workmen 
+-
employed by the contractors in the temporary filtration 
plant were performing similar kind of work as the F 
... 
workmen directly employed by the electricity board in the 
main plant, thus, were entitled to same wages and other 
facilities as' applicable to the workmen directly employed 
1 
by the electricity board. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
~ 
HELD: 1.1. Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh 
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975 
587 
H 
588 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
incorporates the principal of 'equal pay for equal work'. 
~- . 
By statutory provision, it is mandated that the employees 
engaged by the employer through contractor who 
perform the same or similar kind of work must be paid 
the same wages and facilities as being paid to the 
B employees employed directly by the principal employer 
of the establishment. In case of any controversy as to 
whether the workmen employed by the contractor 
perform the same or similar kind of work as employed 
directly by the principal employer of the establishment, 
v~ 
c the Labour Commissioner has been empowered to 
resolve such dispute. Nature of work, duties and 
responsibilities attached thereto are relevant in 
comparing and evaluating as to whether the workmen 
employed through contractor perform the same or similar 
D kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the 
..... 
principal employer. Degree of skill and various 
dimensions of a given job have to be gone into to reach 
r-
a conclusion that nature of duties of the staff in two 
categories are on par or otherwise. Often the difference 
E may be of a degree. Nature of work cannot be judged by 
mere volume of work; there may be qualitative difference 
as regards reliability and responsibility. [Paras 9 and 1 OJ 
[592-G-H; 593-A-C] 
2.1. In the instant case, despite a specific case set up 
+ 
F 
by the appellants as regard the details of works in two 
water filtration plants before the Labour Commissioner to 
show that the contract labour in filtration plant engaged 
through the contractors do not perform the same or 
similar kind of work as is done by the employees 
G employed directly by the employer in main plant, the 
Labour Commissioner did not advert to these aspects at 
all. The Labour Commissioner ought to have adverted to 
the nature of duties of the staff in the two categories, 
degree of skill and dimensions of the job for reaching the 
H 
U.P. RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN BOARD & ANR. v. UTTAR 589 
PRADESH VIDYUT MAZDOOR SANGH 
conclusion that the work done by the contract labour in A 
-i 
the second filtration plant is same or similar to the kind 
of work done by the employees employed by the 
principal employer directly in the main plant. There is no 
discussion at all by the Labour Commissioner as to how 
he arrived at the conclusion about similarity of work. The B 
evidence let in by the parties and the material placed was 
not considered by the Labour Commissioner. [Paras 11', 
12 and 13] [593-0;595-G-H; 596-A-C] 
.... 'I 
2.2. The order of Single Judge is no better. He did not 
consider any thing. The judgment of the Division Bench, c 
though runs in nine foolscap typed pages but out of that, 
eight pages relate to maintainability of appeal. [Para 14] 
[596-D] 
2.3. The consideration of the question as to whether D 
>

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