• Even when the contractor fails to obtain license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, the workers as employed by him would not be treated as employees of the principal employer.
General Labour Union (Red Flag) Bombay
• The workers engaged through a contractor will not become the employees of the principal employer if the contractor does not possess license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act.
Liplon India Ltd. vs. Industrial Tribunal No. II, 1991 LLR 515: 1991-11 CLR 291: 1991-I! LLN 1070 (Del HC).
• Industrial Tribunal is competent to decide that the workers engaged through the contractor will be entitled to same rights which the other employees of the principal employer were enjoying.
Glljaral Eleclricity Board vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha, (1995) III LL) Supp 218: 1991 LLR 572: 1991-11 CLR 60 (Guj HC).
• Employment of contract labour at the residential quarters of the officers of the Reserve Bank cannot be construed as work in the establishment.
Powar vs. wbOllr Enforcemenl Officer (C), (1992) 81 FLR 360: (1992) 65 FLR 907: 1992 LLR 783 (Ker HC).
• The persons appointed by the principal employer through the contractor would not be deemed to be the direct employees of the principal employer since the Act does not provide for total abolition of contract labour but it provides for abolition by the appropriate government.
Dena Nalh v. Nalional Fertilisers Ltd., AIR 1992 SC 457: 1992 LIC 75: (1992) 1 FLR 191: (1992) 1 SCC 695: 1992 LLR 46: 1992 (64) FLR 39: 1992·CLR 1 (SC).
• Engagement of workers on contract merely as camouflage will be against the spirit of Contract Labour (R&A) Act and the workers working under different contractors for last ten years will be absorbed by principal employer.
RK. Panda v. Sleel Aullwrily of India
• The State Government will not be empowered to make reference of a dispute falling within the purview of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act.
Delhi Clolh & General Mills Company Lid. vs. Stale o fRajaslhan, (1993) 11 LL] 1014: 1994 LLR 281: 1994-1 CLR 65 (Raj HC).
• Order of reference for adjudication by Industrial Tribunal pertaining to employees covered under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act will not be maintainable.
Thekedar Mazdoor Union v. Judge, Industrial Tribunal, 1994 LLR 104: 1994-11 LLJ 670 (Raj HC).
• Contract labour engaged for the work of perennial nature can be prohibited by a notification by appropriate government.
All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd.) v. Delhi
• An industrial dispute can be raised for abolition of contract labour system even by the workman of principal employer and for appropriate service conditions by the workman of the contractor.
Gujrat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai, Gujarat vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1995 SC 1893: 1995 LIC 2207: (1995) 71 FLR 102: (1995) 5 SCC 27: 1995 LLR 552: 199511 LLI 790 (SC).
• Only the appropriate government can abolish the contract labour system and its decision can be challenged before Industrial Tribunal.
Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai, Gujarat vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1995 SC 1893: 1995 LIC 2207: (1995) 71 FLR 102: (1995) 5 SCC 27: 1995 LLR 552: 1995· II LLI 790 (SC).
• Industrial Tribunal can also direct the principal employer for absorption of the contract labour on abolition of the system.
Gujarat Electricity Board, Thermal Power Station, Ukai, Gujarat vs. Hind Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1995 SC 1893: 1995 L1C 2207: (1995) 71 FLR 102: (1995) 5 SCC 27: 1995 LLR 552: 1995II LLI 790 (SC).
• Abolition of contract under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act will be only after consultation with the Advisory Board.
Gujarat Working Class Union vs. State of Gujarat
• A principal employer must compensate underpaid contract labour.
Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Labour, (1996) 74 FLR 2151: (1996) 10 SCC 599: (1996) 2 LLN 1068: 1996 L1C 2250: 1996 LLR 865 (SC).
• Formation of a co-operative society by contractual workmen will not change their status of contract labour.
Kerala Food Corporation of India Labourers Federation, vs. Union of India
• Employees engaged by a Trust, working in the canteen of a factory, will lie employees of the principal employer.
Management of Swatantra Bharat Mills vs. Workmen of Swat antra Bharat Mills, 1996 LLR 73: 1996-1I LLI 67 (Del HC).
• Principal employer is liable to pay wages in case the contractor defaults and the term 'wages' includes balance or arrears thereof.
Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India , Calcutta
• Regularization of the workers employed through contractor in staff colony of Air India
International Airports Authority Employees Union, vs. Airport Authority of India
• Issuing common notification prohibiting employment of contract labour in the process of sweeping and scavenging in establishments/factories which employ 50 or more workmen will be valid - The contention that there should be individual consideration and notification and there cannot be a common notification as in the present case, will not be tenable.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 1997 (3) LLN 495 (Mad He). • An appropriate government and not the Court can prohibit the employment and continue contract labour.
K. Ramakrishnan vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (1997) 2 LLN 1181: 1997 LiC 3078: (1997) 77 FLR 703: 1997 (2) LLN 1181 (Mad He).
• fn the absence of a notification for abolition of the contract labour, the principal employer will not be liable to absorb the contract labour.
K. Ramakrishnan vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., (1997) 2 LLN 1181: 1997 LIC 3078: (1997) 77 FLR 703: 1997 LLR 897 (Mad He).
• Continuation of contract labour can be abolished by the appropriate government and not by the Labour Court
Harf Shankar Sharma v. Mis. Artificial Limbs Mnnufaeturing Corporation of India
• The notification prohibiting engagement of contract labour in respect of sweepers and scavengers in an establishment employing 50 or more workmen will be valid.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. Government of TO/nil Nadu, 1997 (91) FjR 503 (Mad He). • Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act will apply to a training & educational institute also.
G.S.H. Reddy vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road
• Agreement for engaging labour through contractor is sham or genuine can be decided by the Labour Court
State Bank of Travancore, Punch Operators Association vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras, 1999 LLR 475: 1999 (81) FLR 737 (Mad HC).
• Employees having completed 240 days of service and engaged through unlicensed/unregistered contractors will be deemed as employees of principal employer when the contract labour system was a sham and the contractor was only a name lender.
Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Suresh, 1999 LIC 1323: (1999) 94 FJR 554: (1999) 1 LLJ 1086: 1999 LLR 433 (SC): 1999-1 CLR 959: 1999 (81) FLR 1016.
• High Court cannot decide the nature of jobs which are prohibited under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act.
Y. Prabhakar Rao vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Chennai, (2000) 3 LLN 568: (2004) 4 ALT 17: (2000) 3 CLR 48: (2000) 86 FLR 743: 2000 LLR 1019 (AP He).
• High Court will not interfere in Government's decision to abolish the contract labour system.
Tata Engineering & Locomotive Company Ltd. vs. Singhbhum the Keaar Mazdoor Sangh, Jamshedpur, 2000 LIC 376: (2000) 86 FLR 922: 2000 LLR 1065 (Pat HC).
• Engagement of contract labour when prohibited will be illegal.
PoIa Satyanarayana vs. Secretary, Government of India
• Prohibition of contract labour will not be applicable on ex-servicemen engaged as security guards.
Deo Sunder Jha vs. Union of India
• Reference of a dispute by contract labour for their regularization to the Industrial Tribunal cannot be set aside.
Rashtriya Mazdoor Union vs. Union of India
• High Court cannot issue directions for regulation/absorption of contractor by the principal employer in the absence of Notification under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act.
I.C.M. Engineering Workers Union vs. Union of India
• Complaint for unfair labour practice will not lie for continuation of contract labour system.
Cipla Ltd. vs. Maharashtra General Ramgar Union, AIR 1999 SC 1635: 1999 LIC 1648: (1999) 82 FLR 225: (1999) 2 LLN 1032: 2001 LLR 305 (SC).
• Contract labour will not be automatically absorbed on its prohibition by Government.
Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers, AIR 2001 SC 1357: (2001) 7 SCC 1: (2001) 99 FJR 385: (2001) II LLJ 1087: 2001 LLR 961 (SC).
• Contract workers will get wages at par with direct workers.
Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. Hindustan Lever Employees Union , (2001) 1 CLR 432: (2001) 3 Mah LJ 81: 2001 LLR 446 (Bom HC).
• Court cannot issue directions to the Government to issue notification for abolition of contract system.
K. Butchi Reddy vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad
• Directions cannot be issued by Court to the principal employer not to terminate a contract with the contractor.
S.K. Ali vs. Managing Director Bharat Heavy Plates & Vessels Ltd., 2001 LLR 863 (AP HC). • Employer will give preference when the contract agreement is found as ruse or camouflage.
Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. National Union Water Front Workers, 2001 LLJ 3656: AIR 2001 SC 3527: (2001) 7 SCC 1: (2001) 99 FJR 385: (2001) II LLJ 1087: 2001 LLR 961 (SC).
• In the absence of prescribed formalities, the prohibition of contract labour system is liable to be quashed.
L & T Me Neil Ltd. vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, (2001) 1 SLT 749: 2001 SCC (L&S) 550: (2001) 1 LLJ 735: 2001 LLR 261 (sq.
• No relief for absorption of contract workers can be granted when they failed to establish their employer.
Workmen(Rep. by Andhra Pradesh Struggle Committee of Delhi Transport Corporation Workers Union Comprising United Electricity Employee Union v. P. O. Industrial Tribunal-I, 2001 LLR 913 (AP HC).
• Only appropriate Government can abolish contract labour and not the High Court.
Cipla Ltd. v. Maharashtra General Ramgar Union, (2001) 3 SCC 101: AIR 2001 SC 1165: 2001 UC 1108: 2001 LLR 305 (SC).
• Prohibition of contract labour system is not to be adjudicated under Industrial Disputes Act but to be decided by the Government.
Hira Cement Workers' Union vs. State of Orissa
• Prohibition of security and watch and ward service through contractor will not be made even when they are performing different jobs.
Printing til General Workers Union v. Union of India
• Regularization of contract labour will not be interfered when there is a direct relationship of employees and employer.
Employers in relation to the Management of Balmari Colliery of MIs. RECL. vs. Presiding Officer, 2002 LLR 177 (Har HC).
• High Court cannot issue direction to the Government for prohibition of contract labour system.
Kamataka Vidyuth Karkane Ltd., Bangalore vs. State of Karnataka, 2002 LLR 380: 2002 LIC 289: 2002-1 LLJ 510: 2002 (I) LLN 1004: 2002-1 CLR 368: 2002 (93) FLR 814 (Kar HC).
• Contract employees can approach the High Court for enforcement of their rights when the Government fails to do so.
All India Food & Allied Workers Union vs. Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., (2002) II CLR 919: (2002) 4 LLN 154: (2002) 95 FLR 478: 2002 LLR 404 (Del HC).
• Automatic absorption of contract labour will not follow on issue of notification for its abolition.
Nitinkumar Nathalal Joshi vs. Oil til Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., (2002) 1 CLR 1113: 2002 SCC (L&S) 440: 2002 LIC 1440: (2002) 2 LLJ 262: (2004) II SLT 496: 2002 LLR 495: 2002 (2) Supreme 406 (SC).
• Prosecution under CL (R&A) Act will not sustain when the notification for abolition of contract labour has been quashed.
State Bank of India
Nuclear Fuel Complex vs. K. Penta Reddy, 2002 LIC 1381: 2002 LLR 608: 2002 (94) FLR 234: 2002-11 LLJ 258: 2002 (2) LLN 966 (AP HC).
• High Court cannot issue direction for prohibition of contract labour when it required adjudication.
1. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Labour Union vs . Group General Manager (Project) Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., 2002 LLR 913 (Guj HC).
2. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. K. V. shramik sangh, 2002 LLR 966: 2002 LIC 1672: (2002) III SLJ 469: (2002) 3 LLN 29: AIR 2002 SC 1815: 2002 (4) SCC 609.
3. Marathwada Vidyut Prakalp vs. State of Maharashtra
• Only Industrial Tribunal is to decide whether a contract labour agreement is sham or camouflage.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. K. V. shramik sangh, 2002 LIC 1672: (2002) III SLJ 469: (2002) 3 LLN 29: 2002 LLR 966 (SC).
• In the absence of evidence by a contractor's employee against the club being registered under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, no relief can be granted by Labour Court
Sunil B. Waghela vs. M/s. Juhu Vile Parle Gymkhana Club, (2002) 95 FLR 195: 2002 LLR 1206 (Bom HC).
• On abolition of contract labour by a notification, the contract labour will not be automatically absorbed.
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Petroleum Employees' Union , (2003) 2 LLN 501: (2003) 1 CLR 157: 2003 LLR 209: 2003-1 LLJ 597 (Bom HC).
• By filing writ petition, the contract workers will not be debarred for claiming equal wages before Labour Commissioner,
A.P. Power Diploma Engineers Association v. Superintending Engineers, Operation, Delhi Transport Corporation Kumool Circle, 2003 LIC 1553: (2002) 6 ALD 371: (2002) 95 FLR 1664: 2003 LLR 167: 2003-1 LLJ 229 (AP HC).
• A conciliation officer under J.D, Act, though designated as Inspector under the CL (R&A) Act, cannot direct the principal employer to pay wages to the contract labour,
Ganesh M. vs. South Central Railway, Secunderabad, (2003) 2 LLN 250: (2003) 96 FLR 897: (2002) III LLJ 999: 2003 LLR 133 (AP HC).
• A contractor holding license under CL (R&A) Act cannot escape the liability for payment of gratuity,
Madras Fertilisers Ltd. vs. Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, (2003) 1 MLJ 398: 2003 LIC 2012: 2003 LLR 244: 2003 (I) LLJ854: 2003 (97) FLR 275 (Mad HC).
• Employees, as alleged to have been engaged by the contractor, will be entitled to regularization when the contract has been found to be sham and camouflage, Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer Central Government, Industrial Tribunal No.1, 2003 LLR 368 (Jhar HC).
• 'Appropriate government' for Indian' Farmers Fertilizer Co-operative .Ltd. will be State and not the Central Government in context with Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act keeping in view the share capital and membership etc. of the IFFCO.
Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha vs. State of Gujarat
• High Court not being empowered to issue writ petition for regularization of contractor's workers covered under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, will not issue an interim order against their continuation to work when a new contractor has been engaged by the principal employer and also the dispute has been referred, under the industrial Disputes Act where the workers can also take up the plea of the violation of its section 33 relating to prior approval/permission, for discharge/dismissal of the workers who are admittedly out of job.
Hem Chand vs, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2003 LLR 582 (Del HC).
• Prosecution under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act for contravention of its provision will be quashed in view of Constitution Bench Judgment of the Supreme Court when the notification for abolition of contract has been quashed and also the subject-matter being at initial stage has not attained the finality.
ABN Amro Bank N.V. vs. State, (2003) 104 DLT 755: (2003) 3 LLN 586: (2003) II LLJ 905: 2003 LLR 627 (Del HC),
• The gardeners engaged by a Government company through a contractor for upkeep of the parks inside the factory premises and its residential colony will be deemed as employees of the company and the High Court has rightly concurred with the findings of the Labour Court directing to initiate prosecution proceedings against the company.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
• The direct relationship of employer and employee between the Company and the workers of the contractor could not be frustrated on the plea that the work of the gardeners was not connected with the work of the establishment.
Bharal Heavy Electrlcals Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
• Fifty four persons working in a factory through the contractors are entitled for their regularization when the principal employer is under statutory obligation to maintain a canteen hence the Supreme Court will not interfere with the order of the Division Bench of the High Court.
National Thermal Power Corporallon Ltd. v. Karrl Pothuraju, (2003) 7 SCC 384, AIR 2003 SC 3647, 2003 LLR 1006, 2003 (III) LLj 567, 2003 (99) FLR 8 (SC).
• High Court is empowered to grant interim relief to the contract workers for maintaining status quo against their termination when a notification for abolition under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act has been issued by the Government but such workers are performing work of regular nature for many years and also the nature of their job e.g. trolly retrievers is of permanent nature at the Airport besides they have been working for past several years.
Raj Kumar vs. Union of India
• The State Government did not apply its mind with reference to the criteria prescribed in section 10(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, at any point of time while issuing of notification in prohibiting contract labour system in the establishment of the petition. Also, the Advisory Board did not invite representations/objections and secure reports from the concerned parties hence liable to be quashed.
Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd., Karnataka Operations, Doddabalapur vs. (1) State of Karnataka, Bangalore, (2) T.A.F.E. Employees Union, Chikkabommasandra, 2003 LLR 1057: (2003) 3 LLN 1110, 2003-III LLJ 760, 2003 (99) FLR 1155 (Karn HC).
• Before issuing notification, the Labour Commissioner had neither held any enquiry nor given any opportunity to the petitioner or the contractors or the employees to express their views in the matter hence recommendation of, the Advisory Board in this case has also been made in a mechanical manner without any kind of enquiry or application of mind hence the notification suffered from legal mala fides hence not legal.
Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd., Karnataka Operations, Doddabalapur vs. (1) State of Karnataka, Bangalore (2) T.A.F.E. Employees Union, Chikkabommasandra, 2003 LLR 1057: (2003) 3 LLN 1110, 2003 (III) LLJ 760, 2003 (99) FLR 1155 (Karn HC).
• Even in case of valid abolition of contract labour, the question of absorption of contract labour would not arise and on failure to follow the requirement of section 7 and section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act would not create a permanent direct relationship of employer and employee between the principal employer and the contract labour.
Arvind Kumar Awasthi vs. State Bank of India
• Acquittal of the accused in his prosecution for violating of the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act will not interfered by the High Court in an appeal when justifiable reasons have been given and also there were below 20 workers apart from the work was only of intermittent or casual nature.
Assistant Labour Commissioner vs. Rnjesh Kumar, (2004) 1 LLJ 935: 2004 LLR 315 (Pat HC).
• When acquittal of the accused, prosecuted for violation of the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, as based upon weight of mass evidence, it cannot be said either unreasonable or perverse hence the High Court will not interfere in an appeal filed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner.
Assistant Labour Commissioner vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2004) 1 LLJ 935: 2004 LLR 430 (Pat HC).
• Direction by the Labour Court
B.C.C. Ltd., Dhanbad (Employers in relation to The A1anagement of Lodna Area) vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad, 2004 LLR 476 (SN) (Jhar HC).
• Contract labour, as engaged for work of bagassee baling permitted by Government notification, cannot claim the status of direct employment with the principal employer, particularly when !he industry is a seasonal in nature and also the appropriate Government has not issued any notification abolishing the contract labour system.
Shamli Mills Shramik Sangathan vs. Industrial Tribunal V, Meerut
• When the contractors' workers were working for 8 to 9 years for the work of perennial nature that too when the contract labour system was also abolished, their regularization will be justified.
Employees in Relation to The Management of Kuju Pundi Project of M/s. CCL, Dhanbad vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, (2004) 102 FLR 117: (2004) IV LLJ Supp (NOC) 335: 2004 LLR 775 (Jhar HC).
• Reinstatement and regularization of 55 contract workers will not be interfered when the contract has been sham.
Employees in Relation' to The Management of Kuju Pundi Project of M/s. CCL, Dhanbad vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, (2004) 102 FLR 117: (2004) IV LLJ Supp (NOC) 335: 2004 LLR 775 (Jhar HC).
• High Court will not interfere in the findings of the Labour Court
Employees in Relation to The Management of Kuju Pundi Project of M/s. CCL, Dhanbad vs. Presiding Officer, (2004) 102 FLR 117: (2004) IV LLJ Supp (NOC) 335: 2004 LLR 775 (Jhar HC).
• A Security Guard engaged through a Security Agency, surrendered to the Security Agency, cannot claim to be an employee of the principal employer.
• Reinstatement of the contract workers will be appropriate when the agreement was sham, camouflage and paper work.
Employers in Relation to The Management of Dugda Coal Washery of M/s. B.C.C. Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad, 2004 LLR 911 (Jhar HC).
• When the canteen contractor has been made responsible for maintenance of registers and records, his employees will not to be absorbed by the principal employer.
Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, (2005) 5 SCC 51: 2005 SCC (L&S) 593: AIR 2005 SC 2412: (2004) 2 LLN 971: (2005) 105 FLR 1051: 2005 LLR 529 (SC).
• If a contractor fails to make payment to its workers, the principal employer would be liable to make payment. .
Uttaranchal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Dehradun, (2004) III LLJ 533: 2004 LLR 1084 (Uttr HC).
• Workers, engaged from material suppliers/transport contractors on casual basis for several years, will be entitled to their regularization.
• Interim injunction by the Tribunal restraining principal employer from terminating the workers of the contractor claiming their regularization would not be interfered.
Baroda District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd, vs. State of Gujarat
• Prosecution of Vice Chairman and Zonal Controller of a bank for violation of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act will be quashed when they have no control over the establishment.
Uday Kotak, Vice Chairman & M.D., Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs. State, Chennai, 2005 LLR 394 (Mad HC).
• Unless contract for statutory canteen between the principal employer and the contractor is sham, the workers will become employees of the former.
M. Elangovan vs. Madras Refineries Ltd., (Rep. by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director), Chennai, 2005 LLR 453 (Mad HC).
• Termination of the contract workers, due to closure of unit, will not form industrial dispute under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act and a reference will be bad whereas the judgment of the High Court will not preclude the workers in seeking their remedy under Contract Labour (R&A) Act.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati, 2005-1 CLR 1058 (Gau HC).
• Merely because the principal employer exercised the right to assess the quality of the employees of the canteen, such employees cannot claim to be employees of the principal employer.
Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2005) 5 sec 51: AIR 2005 5C 2412: (2005) 105 FLR 1051: (2005) 5 SCR 317: 2005 LLR 529: IT 2005 (5) SC 62.
• Under the Contract Labour (R&A) Act, the appropriate government will be State when there is a branch at Bangalore
Victor Joseph, Reg. MD. M/s. Group 4 Securities Guarding Ltd. vs. State, 2005 LLR 964 (Karn HC).
• When a free hand has been given to the contractor to engage the employees for the canteen, his employees will not be absorbed by the principal employer.
Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2005) 5 sec 51: AIR 2005 SC 2412: (2005) 105 FLR 1051: (2005) 5 SCR 317: 2005 LLR 529: IT 2005 (5) SC 62.
• When there was no findings about the principal employer's having adopted a camouflage, the absorption of contract workers will not be legal.
Employers in relation. to the Management of Sudamdih Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. Their Workmen represented by Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, (2006) 2 SCC 329, AIR 2006 SC 946: (2006) 1 LLN 511: (2006) 1 CLR 538: 2006 LLR 245 (SC).
• On abolition of the contract labour system, the direction for absorption is liable to be set aside.
Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Delhi
• When the canteen contractor has been made responsible for maintenance of registers and records, his employees will not to be absorbed by the principal employer.
Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., (2005) 5 SCC 51: AIR 2005 SC 2412: (2005) 105 FLR 1051: (2005) 5 SCR 317: 2005 LLR 529: IT 2005 (5) SC 62.
• An award directing the contract workers to be treated as employees of the principal employer will not be legal.
Employers in relation to the Management of 5udamdih Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. Their Workmen represented by Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh, (2006) 2 SCC 329: AIR 2006 SC 946: (2006) 1 LLN 511: (2006) 1 CLR 538: 2006 LLR 245 (SC).
• When the contract between the so-called contractor(s) has been a camouflage, the workers of contractor will be treated as employees of principal employer.
Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
• In the absence of any notification under CL (Regulation and Abolition) Act prohibiting contract workers, their absorption will not be justified.
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. G. Srinivas Reddy, (2006) 3 sec 674: 2006 SCC (L&S) 577: AIR 2006 SC 1465: (2006) 2 LLN 516: 2006 LLR 433 (SC).
• For seeking relief by absorption of the contract labour by the principal employer, the workers have to raise an industrial dispute.
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. G. Srinivas Reddy, (2006) 3 see 674: 2006 SCC (L&S) 577: AIR 2006 se 1465: (2006) 2 LLN 516: 2006 LLR 433 (SC).
• The High Court could not have directed absorption of employees of the contractor by assuming that the contract labour system was only a camouflage.
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. G. Srinivas Reddy, (2006) '3 SCC 674: 2006 SCC (I.&S) 577: AIR 2006 SC 1465: (2006) 2 LLN 516: 2006 LLR 433 (SC).
• When there was a finding that the contract system was sham and camouflage, the High Court cannot direct absorption of contract labour by principal employer.
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. G. Srinivas Reddy, (2006) 3 SCC 674: 2006 SCC (L&S) 577: AIR 2006 SC 1465: (2006) 2 LLN 516: 2006 LLR 433 (SC).
• Liability of the principal employer is restricted to only wages to workers of contractors under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and the Rules.
Chand Chihnp Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd., Kanpur vs. Labour Commissioner (Uttar Pradesh) Kanpur
• Principal employer will not be liable for violation of conditions precedent for issuing of license under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act.
Chand Chihap Fertilizer and Chemicals Ltd., Kanpur vs. Labour Commissioner (Uttar Pradesh) Kanpur
• Appropriate government for the NTPC under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act will be Central Government and not the State.
National Thermal Power vs. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi
• Challenging of contract labour system as sham or camouflage can be before the government and not the Courts.
Air India Ltd. vs. Jagesh Dult Sharma, 2007 LLR 23 (Del HC)
• Under CL (Regulation and Abolition) Act contractor's employees will be entitled to wages of regular employees.
Steel Authority of India Ltd, vs. Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 2007 LLR 79 (MP HC).
• High Court cannot decide the factual aspects of contract labour system.
Air India Ltd. vs. Jagesh Dutt Sharma, 2007 LLR 23 (Del HC).
• Employer can engage security services through contractor when contract labour system Is not prohibited.
Muniraj Singh Chauhan s/o Sh. Gugan Ram, Villilge Rangpuri vs. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Delhi, 2007 LLR 20 (Del HC).
• Interim relief to maintain status quo was appropriate when a dispute referred as to whether contractor's employees are the employees of the principal employer.
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Transport & Dock Workers Union , 2007 LLR 538 (Bom HC).
• Under Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 'the person aggrieved' for filing an appeal will be only contractor and not principal employer.
Management of Manali Petrochemical Ltd., Manalii, Chennai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour-II, Chennai, 2007 LLR 668 (SN) (Mad HC).
• If contractor fails to pay wages, the principal employer will be liable under the Act.
Bharat Earth Movers Limited vs. Gangaramaiah by Sri Mahmood Mirza, 2007 LLR 719 (Karn HC).
• Workers, engaged through contractor, would be entitled to minimum wages under the Act.
Bharat Earth Movers Limited vs. Gangaramaiah by Sri Mahmood Mirza, 2007 LLR 719 (Karn HC).
• Regularization of canteen workers of contractors will not be tenable when contract has neither been sham nor bogus.
Contract Laghu Udyog Kamgar Union vs. S.N. Saundankar, Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, 2007 LLR 782 (SN) (Bom HC).
• 'To supervise' the performance of operation of activity means to watch over, direct a corrective step and tendering of advice.
National India Rubber Works Ltd, vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, through its Regional Director M.P., 2007 LLR 838 (MP HC).
• When the guards were appointed through the contractor, their reinstatement is rightly set aside.
Management of Institute of Road Transport Technology, Erode vs. S. Arumugam , 2007 LLR 827 (Mad HC).
• After privatization, trolley reliever would not be absorbed even on abolition of contract labour.
• It is for government and not the court to abolish contract labour system under the CL(R&A) Act. Also High Court cannot direct government to refer a dispute for abolition of contract labour system.
Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. vs. General Employees' Association, 2007 LLR 89B (SC).
• Absorption of contract labour, awarded by Tribunal and not by notification under the CL (R&A) Act, will be legal.
Management of A.S.E.B. vs. IndustriaL TribunaL , Assam
• Canteen workers through contractor will have the status of regular employees.
Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs. Association of Engineering Workers, 2008 LLR 509 (SC).
• Contract Labour (R&A) Act does not provide total abolition of contract labour but regularization also.
Food Corporation of India vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court Chandigarh
• Contractor's workers are estopped to state as working for principal employer having already stated to be working with contractor.
Himmat Singh vs. I.C.I India Ltd., 2008 LLR 357 (SC).
• Deposit of ESI and PF contributions by principal employer for contractor's employees will not be a deciding factor for genuineness of contract.
Bhartiya Kamgar Sena vs. Udhe India Ltd., 2008 LLR 344 (Bom HC).
• Employment of a contract labourer through a contractor must be bona fide.
Food Corporation of India v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court-I, Chandigarh
• Even when neither the principal employer has registration certificate nor the contractor a license under CL (R&A) Act, contractor's workers will not be employees of the principal employer.
Food Corporation of India vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court-1, Chandigarh, 2008 LLR 391 (P&H HC).
• Exercising of control over workers will determine genuineness of the contract.
Bhartiya Kamgar Sena vs. Udhe India Ltd., 2008 LLR 344 (Bom HC).
• Government has to refer the dispute when workers allege the contract as sham.
Ramesh Kumar vs. Union of India
• It is for Tribunal and not the Govt. to decide whether a contract between workers is a sham or not.
Bhartiyn Janata Kamgar Mahnsangh Maharnshtra, Nagpur vs. Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India , Delhi
• Maintaining register by the principal employer for contractor's workers will not mean control by the company.
Bhartiya Kamgar Sena vs. Udhe India Ltd., 2008 LLR 344 (Bom HC).
• Merely alleging that the contract labour system was sham or camouflage, no relief can be awarded.
Food Corporation of India vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court-1, Chandigarh, 2008 LLR 391 (P&H HC).
• Merely because employees were doing some work, other than the housekeeping, it would not change contract.
Bhartiya Kamgar Sena vs. Udhe India Ltd., 2008 LLR 344 (Bom HC).
• Merely because the contractor has obtained license under Contract Labour Act will not deprive contract workers to get their dispute adjudicated.
Ramesh Kumar vs. Union of India
• Non registration of employer under Contract Labour (R&A) Act can attract penalty but not regularization of workers of contractors.
Food Corporation of India vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court-l, Chandigarh, 2008 LLR 391 (P&H HC).
• Prosecution of Managing Director residing in Kolkata, for non-submission of returns under Contract Labour (R&A) Act, is liable to be quashed.
Nirmal Bhogilal vs. State of Jharkhand
• Similar wages to workers of contractor not payable when they were doing only intermittent work of regular employees.
Himmat Singh vs. I.C.I. India Ltd., 2008 LLR 357 (SC).
• Under Contract Labour (R&A) Act, Government can also suo mota abolish contract system.
Bharliya Knmgar Sena vs. Udhe India Ltd., 2008 LLR 344 (Bom HC).
• Prosecution of employer under Contract Labour (R&A) Act is to be quashed when complaint is beyond limitation.
Dr. Bangati Baboo vs. State of Iharkhand
• Supervision and control by the principal employer on contractor's workers is the decisive factor to determine 'employer-employee' relationship.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, 2008 LLR 1070 (Del HC).
• Workers of contractor in the statutory canteen, controlled and supervised by the Company, will be employees of the principal employer.
Kerala Electrical and A.E. Company Ltd. vs, Leemns D'Cruze, 2008 LLR 1080 (Ker HC).
• When canteen contractor was only a glorified supervisor, workers will be employees of Company.
Kerala Electrical and A.E. Company Ltd. vs. Leemn, D'Cruze, 2008 LLR 1080 (Ker HC).
• Reinstatement to a contract labourer with the principal employer and back wages by contractor is not proper without deciding as to who is real employer.
Lupin Laboratories Ltd. vs. J.P. Gaikwad, 2008 LLR 1078 (Bom HC).
• Workers of contractor doing same work as regular employees will be entitled to regularization.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Presiding Offieer, Central Government Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, 2009 LLR 75 (Mad HC).
• Last drawn wages to a workman will not be payable if he is getting adequate amount by way of pensionery benefits.
Municipal Council, Siakar vs. Rawat Singh, 2009 LLR 104 (Raj HC).
• Engaging contract labour will not be legal when the Certified Standing Orders did not provide.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, 2009 LLR 75 (Mad HC).
• Conciliation officer cannot decide whether an employee is a 'workman' or not.
Bikraditya Singh @ BD. Singh vs. Civil Judge (I.D.), Shrawasti, 2009 LLR 50 (All HC).
• An individual worker can also raise an industrial dispute pertaining to prohibition of contract labour system.
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Mumbai v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, 2009 LLR 75 (Mad HC).
• Workers engaged through contractor are not entitled to absorption.
Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. State of West 'Bengal , 2009 LLR 112 (SN) (SC) 112.
• Labour Court cannot direct parity of wages to workers engaged through the canteen contractor.
Hindalco Pragati Sheel Mazdoor Sabha, Renukoot Mirzapur vs. Industrial Tribunal-I, Allahabad
• Contractor's laboUr not to become employees of the principal employer merely on the basis of directions by the Asstt. Registrar of Trade Unions.
Sunflag Iron and Steel Company Ltd., Nagpur vs. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Department of Labour, Mumbai, 2009 LLR 125 (Bom HC).
• In view of provisions of section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, it is only the appropriate Government which has the authority to abolish genuine labour contract in accordance with the provisions of the said section.
National Thermal Power Corporation vs. Badri Singh Thakur, 2009 LLI 198 (SC).
• When the relationship of employer and employee is established but there was no notification abolishing contract labour issued by appropriate Government, hence the claim for regularization was rightly rejected; besides that M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 will not supersede Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970.
National Thermal Power Corporation vs. Badri Singh Thakur, 2009 FLR 153 (SC).
0 comments:
Post a Comment