Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a trade union representing workmen of Taroda Opencast Mine of Western Coalfields Limited, challenged an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Mumbai, dated 02.05.1997, which answered a reference in the negative. The reference sought absorption of 13 canteen workers employed through a contractor since March 1989. The mine started operations in 1987, and a contractor was appointed on 16.03.1989 to run the canteen. The workers contended that the engagement of the contractor violated the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1947, the Mines Act, 1952, and the Mines Rules, 1955, as well as the National Coal Wage Agreement IV (NCWA-IV). They argued that the contractor was a sham and that they were directly employed by the principal employer. The Tribunal held that the contractor was genuine and that there was no prohibition on contract labour for canteens in coal mines. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's award, finding that the contract was not a sham, the workers were not directly employed by the principal employer, and no notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act prohibited such labour. The court also noted that the Mines Act and Rules require a canteen but do not mandate direct employment. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Contract Labour - Absorption - Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1947 - The issue was whether 13 canteen workers employed through a contractor in a coal mine were entitled to absorption by the principal employer. The court held that the contractor was not a sham and the contract was genuine, and since no notification prohibiting contract labour in canteens in coal mines was issued under Section 10 of the Act, the workers were not entitled to absorption. (Paras 1-10)
B) Mines Act, 1952 - Canteen - Statutory Obligation - Sections 48, 49, Mines Rules, 1955 - The court examined whether the canteen was a statutory requirement under the Mines Act and Rules. It held that while the Mines Act and Rules require a canteen, the obligation is on the occupier to provide it, but that does not automatically make the canteen workers employees of the principal employer. The engagement of a contractor for running the canteen is permissible. (Paras 3-8)
C) Industrial Law - National Coal Wage Agreement - NCWA-IV - The court considered the National Coal Wage Agreement IV and found that it did not prohibit the engagement of contract labour for canteen services. The agreement's provisions regarding absorption of contract labour were not applicable to the facts of the case. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the canteen workers employed through a contractor in a coal mine are entitled to absorption by the principal employer on the ground that the contract labour system was a sham or prohibited under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's award that the workers were not entitled to absorption.
Law Points
- Contract labour
- absorption
- sham contract
- principal employer
- Mines Act
- 1952
- Mines Rules
- 1955
- National Coal Wage Agreement IV
- Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act
- 1947
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (01) 88
Writ Petition No. 327 of 1998
Shri R.B. Pendharkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri G. Belsare, Advocate for the petitioner; Shri M.P. Badar, Advocate for respondent No. 2
The Workmen of Taroda Opencast Mine of Western Coalfields Limited, represented by the Union, Rashtriya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), through its Joint General Secretary, Shri G.V.R. Sarma
1. Central Government Industrial TribunalcumLabour Court No.2, Mumbai; 2. The Sub Area Manager, Taroda Opencast Mine, now known as Neeljay Opencast Mine No. 1 of the Western Coalfields Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the Tribunal's award and to direct absorption of 13 canteen workers by the principal employer.
Filing Reason
The workers claimed that the engagement of a contractor for running the canteen was a sham and violated various labour laws, and they were entitled to direct absorption.
Previous Decisions
The Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Mumbai, in Reference No. CGIT2/68 of 92, answered the reference in the negative on 02.05.1997.
Issues
Whether the canteen workers employed through a contractor are entitled to absorption by the principal employer.
Whether the contract labour system was a sham or prohibited under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1947.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the contractor was a sham and the workers were directly employed by the principal employer, relying on the Mines Act, 1952, Mines Rules, 1955, and NCWA-IV.
The respondent argued that the contractor was genuine, the contract was not prohibited, and the workers were not entitled to absorption.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the contractor was not a sham and the contract was genuine. Since no notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1947 prohibited contract labour in canteens in coal mines, the workers were not entitled to absorption. The Mines Act and Rules require a canteen but do not mandate direct employment.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner – Trade Union has challenged the Award dated 02.05.1997 delivered by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Mumbai, in Reference No. CGIT2/68 of 92 answering the reference made at their instance in negative.
The reference as made on 10.12.1992 reads as under: 'Whether Shri K.P.S. Nair and other 12 workers (list enclosed) working in the Canteen through the contractor are entitled for absorption by the Sub Area Manager, Taroda Opencast, W.C. Ltd., District – Yeotmal, after working from March 1989 ? If not, to what relief they are entitled to ?'
Procedural History
The reference was made on 10.12.1992 to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Mumbai. The Tribunal delivered its award on 02.05.1997 answering the reference in the negative. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 05.01.2011.
Acts & Sections
- Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1947: Section 10
- Mines Act, 1952: Sections 48, 49
- Mines Rules, 1955:
- Constitution of India: Article 226
