CEMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the writ petition is to the order passed by the Labour Court allowing the petition filed under Sec. 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners were employees through a contractor employed by the writ petitioner-Cement Corporation. The contention of the workman was that the contractor had not paid the minimum wages as was statutorily bound to be paid to them and they had also been denied full bonus, which they were entitled to. Some leave salary had also not been released and the workmen, therefore, would give out a detail of calculation setting out their entitlements. The petition filed in Form K 3 was directed against the Corporation as well as the Contractors, who were arrayed as respondents No.2 to 5. The amounts claimed by them were: (i) difference of wages payable namely the wages actually paid and the minimum wages that were applicable to them Rs. 39593.38; (ii) statutory bonus at @ 8.33% Rs. 3831.48 and (iii) encashment value of leave and holidays amount to be ascertained for 47 days. The basis of the claim for the workman was that the contractors, who were liable to make the payment did not make the payment and therefore, the Corporation as the principal employer was bound to make the payment. The Corporation entered a contest denying any nexus of employment between the Corporation and the workmen and therefore, contended that the rights if at all could be only against the contractors, who were their employers and there could not be any relief against the Corporation. It was also contended by the Corporation that it was a sick company and they relied on a certificate given by the BIFR to show that the Corporation ceased its activities and had been declared sick by the order of BIFR on 08.08.1996. IFCI had been appointed as an operating agency.

(2.) The Labour Court rejected the contention in defence and held that the workmen had established their entitlement to the claims made, particularly, by the fact that their contractors themselves did not deny the claims made by the workmen. The Labour Court found that the liability of the principal employer was clearly established and therefore, allowed the claim petition.

(3.) In the challenge through the writ petition, the Corporation contends that the award, which had been passed between the management and the Corporation employees clearly delineated the activities, which could be entrusted through contractors and the loading and unloading of goods were an identified subjectfor entrustment through contractors. The workmen, who were making the claim were admittedly persons who were engaged in the work of loading and unloading and therefore, their activity was outside the purview of employment terms between the Corporation and the employees themselves. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would argue, therefore, that there is no liability for the Corporation to satisfy the claim of the workmen, which they could enforce only against their own employers namely, the contractors and not against the Corporation.