KAHC010137632012_1

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging the Industrial Tribunal's award directing reinstatement of contract workers.

The petitioner-employer sought to quash the Industrial Tribunal award dated 03.12.2011 and dismiss the dispute.

The employer was aggrieved by the Tribunal's direction to restore the services of workmen without adjudicating the referred questions and in the absence of a prohibition notification under the CLRA Act.

Industrial Tribunal in ID No.5/2000 passed an award on 03.12.2011 directing restoration of services to certain workmen. Earlier, the Tribunal had passed an interlocutory order on 12.04.2001 directing similar restoration, which was stayed by the Division Bench of the High Court in W.A. No.3517/2001 with a direction to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

Whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in directing reinstatement of contract workers without first determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Whether the industrial adjudicator can entertain disputes relating to contract labour in the absence of a notification under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Whether the contract system alleged by the union was a sham or genuine contract. Whether the Tribunal failed to adjudicate the questions referred to it under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The employer argued that in the absence of a notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting contract labour, the industrial adjudicator had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute or direct absorption. The employer contended that it had validly entered contracts for house-keeping, gardening, loading and unloading work, which were not perennial and required only a few hours a day, and the workmen were engaged by contractors, not by the employer directly. The employer submitted that the Tribunal had, in a connected proceeding (refusal of work case), concluded that there was no employer-employee relationship, yet in the impugned award it directed reinstatement, thereby contradicting itself. The employer argued that the impugned award merely confirmed an earlier interlocutory order without adjudicating the core issues referred to the Tribunal, and therefore must be set aside. The employer relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1, particularly the principles in paragraph 125, to support the proposition that absorption of contract labour cannot be directed without a valid prohibition notification and that the industrial adjudicator must first determine whether the contract is a sham.

The workers, through the respondent Union, filed a petition on 31.03.1999 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner seeking a declaration that they were permanent employees of the employer. Conciliation failed, and the State Government referred the dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the ID Act to the Industrial Tribunal on 14.12.1999. During pendency, 19 of the 66 workmen raised a further dispute regarding refusal of work from February 2000; this was also referred to the Industrial Tribunal on 07.03.2001 as Reference No.5/2001. The Union filed an interlocutory application seeking restoration of services, and the Tribunal ordered restoration on 12.04.2001. This order was challenged in W.P. No.18358/2001 (stay declined) and W.A. No.3517/2001 (stay granted, appeal disposed with direction to expedite). The Tribunal passed its final award on 03.12.2011 directing the employer to restore the services of the workmen. The employer then filed the present writ petition.

• Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970: Section 10(1)
• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 10(1)(d), Section 11
• Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227