IDMC LIMITED Vs. ABDULBHAI MAHMADBHAI MULTANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This bunch of appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dtd. 23/3/2022 passed by learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions challenging the order dtd. 15/2/2021 passed by the Industrial Tribunal under Sec. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. To challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the respondent- workmen are not the employees of the company, they cannot claim benefits admissible to the regular employees of the company. In the application under Sec. 33-C (2) filed by the respondent-workmen, they have claimed benefits such as performance based incentive, uniform and safety shoes, which were alien to the interim direction issued by the learned Single Judge, which can be found at page-28 of the paper book. It is argued that the appellant-company has complied with the interim directions contained in the order dtd. 10/8/2006 passed in Special Civil Application No.13996 of 2006, wherein the award dtd. 21/3/2006 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Reference Case No.662 of 2001 has been subjected to challenge. The contention, thus, is that the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal cannot travel beyond the scope of Sec. 33-C (2), which is confined to pre-existing rights. The reliefs, which have been granted by the interim order dtd. 10/8/2006, cannot be claimed by the respondent-workmen, more so, when they are not the employees of the company and have been engaged through contractor.

(2.) Dealing with these arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, we are required to extract the interim relief granted by this Court by the order dtd. 10/8/2006, pursuant to which the application under Sec. 33-C (2) had been filed by the respondent-workmen.

(3.) A bare perusal of the interim order dtd. 10/8/2006 indicates that the respondents-workmen, who are working with the contractor with effect from 1/1/2006, have been held entitled to regular salary and other allowances, which are available to regular workers, without raising any objection about the age and qualification of such workmen. Apart from the above, the respondent-workmen are also held entitled to difference of salary with allowances, i.e. difference between contract wages and regular wages.