Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a partner of M/s. Shah & Co., challenged an award of the Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai in Reference (IT) No.24 of 2011. The dispute concerned eleven workmen represented by the first respondent union, whose services were terminated with effect from 1 April 2009. The petitioner contended that the workmen were employees of respondent no.3, a contractor, and not of the firm. The workmen had initially filed complaints of unfair labour practice before the Industrial Court and Labour Court, but later withdrew them and raised an industrial dispute through the respondent union. The Tribunal held that the workmen were employees of the firm and their termination was illegal, awarding reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The High Court, in its analysis, noted that the Tribunal had considered evidence including the fact that the workmen were supervised and controlled by the firm, their wages were paid by the firm, and they were provided benefits like ESI by the firm. The court found no perversity in the Tribunal's findings and dismissed the petition, upholding the award.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Workman Definition - Employer-Employee Relationship - Section 2(s) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The court examined whether workmen engaged through a contractor were employees of the principal employer or the contractor. Held that the Industrial Tribunal's finding of employer-employee relationship between the firm and workmen was based on evidence of control, supervision, and payment of wages by the firm, and was not perverse (Paras 1-8).
B) Industrial Law - Termination of Services - Illegal Termination - Sections 25F, 25G Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The court upheld the Tribunal's award of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages for workmen terminated without compliance with statutory requirements. Held that the termination was illegal as no notice or compensation was given (Paras 9-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the workmen were employees of the petitioner firm or of the contractor, and whether their termination was illegal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Tribunal's award. The court found no perversity in the Tribunal's findings and held that the employer-employee relationship between the firm and the workmen was established.
Law Points
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 2(s) definition of workman
- employer-employee relationship
- burden of proof
- termination of services
- reference to Industrial Tribunal
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (11) 37
WRIT PETITION NO. 9487 OF 2017
Mr. S.K. Talsania, Senior Advocate with K.S. Bapat and Jayesh Desai i/b. Desai & Desai Associates for Petitioner. Mr. J.B. Saha for Respondent No.1.
Their Workmen, United Workers Association & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an award of the Industrial Tribunal in a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the Tribunal's award which held that the workmen were employees of the firm and ordered reinstatement with back wages.
Filing Reason
The petitioner disputed the finding of employer-employee relationship between the firm and the workmen, claiming they were employees of a contractor.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Tribunal passed an award in Reference (IT) No.24 of 2011 holding that the workmen were employees of M/s. Shah & Co. and their termination was illegal, directing reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
Issues
Whether the workmen were employees of the petitioner firm or of the contractor?
Whether the termination of the workmen was illegal?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the workmen were employees of respondent no.3 contractor, not of the firm, and there was no employer-employee relationship.
Respondent union argued that the workmen were directly employed by the firm, supervised and controlled by it, and their termination was illegal.
Ratio Decidendi
The Industrial Tribunal's finding of employer-employee relationship between the firm and the workmen was based on evidence of control, supervision, and payment of wages by the firm, and was not perverse. The termination of workmen without compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was illegal, warranting reinstatement with back wages.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition challenges awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Mumbai in a reference made to it under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The dispute concerns termination of services of workmen represented by the first Respondent union.
Procedural History
The workmen initially filed complaints of unfair labour practice before the Industrial Court and Labour Court. They later withdrew those complaints and raised an industrial dispute through the respondent union, resulting in Reference (IT) No.24 of 2011 before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal passed an award in favor of the workmen, which the petitioner challenged in the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 2(s), 25F, 25G
