9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Determination of whether the appellant is the employer of the 21 workmen. 2. Interpretation of the definition of "employer" under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. Examination of whether the workmen are entitled to the benefits of the Standing Orders regarding minimum wages. Detailed Analysis: 1. The primary issue in this case was to determine whether the appellant was the employer of the 21 workmen involved. The Labour Court accepted the appellant's contention that the work of removal of press-mud was contracted to a third party, Banarsi Das, and that the workmen were employed by this contractor. However, the Labour Court held that based on the definition of "employer" in the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, the appellant was considered the legal employer of the workmen, entitling them to benefits such as minimum wages and reinstatement. 2. The interpretation of the definition of "employer" under the Act was crucial in establishing the appellant's liability as the employer of the workmen. The Act's definition stated that if the owner of an industry contracts with a person for work that is part of the industry, the owner becomes the employer. The Court dismissed the appellant's argument that this definition made the contractor the employer, emphasizing that the purpose was to prevent owners from evading the Act by using contractors. The Court concluded that the workmen were indeed under the appellant's employment based on the Act's definition. 3. Another significant issue was whether the workmen were entitled to the benefits of the Standing Orders, specifically regarding minimum wages. The Standing Orders defined "workmen" as those employed by a factory, leading to a debate on whether workmen employed by a contractor fell under this definition. The Court ruled that the Standing Orders' language was broad enough to include workmen employed by contractors, ensuring that all individuals engaged in the industry's work received the benefits outlined in the Orders. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Labour Court's decision regarding the employer-employee relationship and the entitlement of the workmen to benefits under the Standing Orders. The judgment clarified the definitions under the Act and the Standing Orders, emphasizing the protection of workmen's rights and preventing circumvention of labor laws through contractor arrangements.
|
