Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from two writ petitions filed by a trade union and individual workmen against M/s. Exide Industries Ltd. The petitioners challenged an order of the Industrial Tribunal, Pune, dated 30 September 2022, which rejected the reference of an industrial dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the ground that the dispute regarding regularisation of contract labour was not an industrial dispute. The workmen were employed as contract labour through a contractor, and they sought regularisation as permanent employees of the principal employer. The union raised a demand for regularisation, which was not accepted, leading to a conciliation failure and subsequent reference to the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the dispute did not fall within the definition of 'industrial dispute' under Section 2A of the ID Act. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the Tribunal erred in rejecting the reference at the threshold. The court observed that the dispute raised by the workmen through their union is clearly an industrial dispute, and the Tribunal ought to have decided the reference on merits. The court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed the Tribunal to decide the reference afresh in accordance with law, considering the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The court also noted that the workmen had alleged termination without compliance with Section 25F of the ID Act, which requires examination. The petitions were allowed, and the Tribunal was directed to dispose of the reference within six months.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Reference of Dispute - Maintainability - Section 10(1)(d) read with Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Industrial Tribunal rejected the reference on the ground that the dispute regarding regularisation of contract labour is not an industrial dispute. The High Court held that the dispute raised by the workmen through their union is an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2A, and the Tribunal ought to have decided the reference on merits instead of rejecting it at the threshold. (Paras 10-15) B) Contract Labour - Regularisation - Abolition of Contract Labour System - Sections 10 and 21 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - The workmen sought regularisation as permanent employees of the principal employer. The High Court observed that the issue of regularisation of contract labour is a live industrial dispute and the Tribunal must consider the applicability of the CLRA Act and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various judgments. (Paras 16-20) C) Industrial Disputes Act - Termination of Services - Retrenchment - Sections 25F, 25G, 25H - The workmen alleged that their services were terminated without compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F. The High Court noted that the Tribunal should examine whether the termination amounted to retrenchment and whether the workmen are entitled to relief under the Act. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in rejecting the reference of an industrial dispute regarding regularisation of contract labour as not maintainable, and whether the dispute falls within the ambit of 'industrial dispute' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the order of the Industrial Tribunal dated 30 September 2022, and directed the Tribunal to decide the reference (Ref. (IT) No. 3 of 2019) afresh on merits in accordance with law, within six months.
Law Points
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 10(1)(d)
- Section 2A
- Section 25F
- Section 25G
- Section 25H
- Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act
- 1970
- Sections 10
- 21
- Regularisation of Contract Labour
- Reference of Dispute
- Industrial Tribunal Jurisdiction
