2019 (2) TMI 2049 - SC - Indian Laws

Termination of services of workman Shri Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola, s/o Late Shri Vachaspati Jakhmola, Helper by the employer, w.e.f. 13.11.2001 - entitlement of benefit/relief the concerned workman - HELD THAT - What is clear from the evidence that was led by the parties is that the gate passes were issued, as has been stated by the appellant s witness, only at the request of the contractor for the sake of safety and also from the administrative point of view. The idea was security, as otherwise any person could enter the precincts of the factory. This evidence was missed by the Labour Court when it arrived at a conclusion that a direct relationship ought to be inferred from this fact alone. The argument that the contractor, in the facts of the present case, gets only a 10 per cent profit and nothing more, is again an argument that needs to be rejected in view of the clear and unequivocal evidence that has been led in this case. The workmen have themselves admitted that there is no appointment letter, provident fund number or wage slip from BHEL insofar as they are concerned - it is also clear from the evidence led on behalf of BHEL, that no wages were ever been paid to them by BHEL as they were in the service of the contractor. Further, it was also specifically pointed out that the names of 29 workers were on the basis of a List provided by the contractor in a bid that was made consequent to a tender notice by BHEL. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the termination of services of workmen.
2. Application of the notification dated 24.04.1990 under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
3. Determination of the employer-employee relationship.
4. Review of the Labour Court's Award and subsequent High Court judgments.
5. Exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the termination of services of workmen:
The core issue was whether the termination of the services of the workmen was justified. The Labour Court, by its Award dated 01.11.2009, held that the workmen were entitled to reinstatement without backwages, concluding that they were directly employed by the appellant (BHEL). This conclusion was based on documentary evidence, including gate passes, and a concession allegedly made by the employer’s representative.

2. Application of the notification dated 24.04.1990 under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970:
The Labour Court applied the notification dated 24.04.1990, which was argued to be inapplicable as BHEL was exempted from such notification. The Supreme Court found that the Labour Court’s application of this notification was perverse since BHEL was exempted, and there was no prohibition on employing contract labour.

3. Determination of the employer-employee relationship:
The Labour Court inferred a direct relationship between the appellant and the workmen based on gate passes and a concession made by the employer’s representative. However, the Supreme Court held that such an inference was incorrect. The evidence showed that gate passes were issued for safety and administrative purposes at the contractor's request. The Supreme Court emphasized that a concession on mixed questions of fact and law cannot decide cases, and the evidence as a whole must be weighed.

4. Review of the Labour Court's Award and subsequent High Court judgments:
The appellant’s review petition was dismissed by the Labour Court, which held that the notification dated 24.04.1990 had already been considered. The High Court dismissed the writ petition against the Labour Court’s Award, stating that the workmen were performing duties identical to regular employees and were under BHEL’s control. The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s findings were contrary to the evidence on record, which showed that the workmen were paid by contractors and were not directly employed by BHEL.

5. Exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution:
The Supreme Court decided to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136, finding that the Labour Court’s Award and the High Court’s judgments were perverse. The Court noted that judicial review under Article 226 should be exercised with circumspection, and the Labour Court’s findings were not supported by evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and the Labour Court’s Award, allowing the appeals.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Labour Court’s findings were perverse and unsupported by evidence. The High Court’s judgments were also found to be contrary to the evidence on record. The appeals were allowed, and the judgments of the High Court and the Labour Court’s Award were set aside.