AEC COMPANY LIMITED Vs. ELECTRICITY MAJDOOR SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two SCAs are preferred originally by the employer-the Ahmedabad Electricity Company (hereinafter referred to as the company) and Labour union representing the workmen of the company viz. Electricity Mazdoor Sabha (hereinafter referred it as EMS) against the award passed in Reference No. 133 of 1992 on 20.9.1997. With the consent of the parties, the main SCAs and the CA are heard together finally. Learned advocates for the respondents in each petition have waived service of notice of rule in all the above said matters.

(2.) The EMS raised an industrial dispute in respect of 360 workmen who have shown on record as the workmen working under the contractors contending that the work which these workmen are carrying out is permanent in nature and connected with the general activities of the company and the contracts executed between the company and its contractors to show that those 360 workmen are contract labourers were sham and a comouflage in order to avoid the provisions of the labour laws and to deny those 360 workmen the benefits of the regular employees of the company. Thus it was contended that said 360 workmen were real workmen of the company and the contracts between the contractor to provide labourers and the company are illegal and camouflage to deny these workmen the rights of the regular employees. They therefore, sought to declare that they were regular employees of the company and that they were entitled to get the same pay and allowances which are being paid to the regular employees of the company.

(3.) The company had resisted the claim of the EMS by contending that the demand which the EMS is making of seeking the abolition of contract labour system and the Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to grant the same relief. It is further contended that out of those 360 workmen about 34 workmen had earlier filed applications to get the same and similar reliefs and their applications were rejected by the Labour Court. Consequently they cannot raise the same contention again by raising an industrial dispute through the EMS. It was also contended by the company that out of those 360 workmen the workmen who are working in the township system could not be said to be the workmen of the company and the job which these workmen are doing have no connection with the work of the company. Therefore, those workmen could not claim to be the workmen of the company and they cannot claim and get the declaration of being workmen of the company and other consequential reliefs. It was further contended that out of those 360 workmen who were working as drivers are the personal drivers of the employees/officer of the company and they have no connection with the working of the company. Similarly one of the workman who is driver of the school bus has also no connection with the company. He is engaged by the parents of the students to send the children by the school bus and they arrange to make payment of him and consequently they cannot claim any relief against the company. It was further contended that even after the introduction of the contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1970.) There is no bar to engagement of labourers through contractor. It is further contended that the validity of the employment through the contractors could not be decided and considered by the Industrial Court and said Act of 1970 is a complete code and it makes the provision to declare the invalidity of the contract or to abolish contract labour system. Thus it was contended that the reference be rejected. The Industrial Court gave opportunity to both the sides to lead oral as well as documentary evidence and on considering the material before it, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that from the date of reference i.e. 3.12.1992 all the workmen mentioned in the reference were to be treated as employees of the company and out of them 339 workmen who have joined upto 1990 should be absorbed in the permanent strength of the company on 3.12.1992, 16 workmen should be absorbed from 1.1.1994 and 5 workmen from 1.1.1995. The Industrial Court further issued a direction that if no vacant posts available to absorb them, then the company should create additional permanent posts to absorb them and they should be paid benefits in two equal quartarly installments within 6 months. The Industrial Courts negatived the contention of the company that the relief sought was of abolition of the contract labour system and consequently the Industrial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain in the reference.