HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER of reference dated October 6, 1982 (Ex. 5) passed by the Government under Section 10 (1) (d) read with Section 12 (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short Act of 1947) and the award dated September 21, 1984 (Ex. 7) passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, in I. T. Case No. 306/82 have been challenged in this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) HINDUSTAN Machine Tools Ltd. is an instrumentality of Central Government having its Head Office at Bangalore. It has 18 factories/ units all over India including the one at Ajmer. H. M. T. Shramik Sangh is a registered Trade Union of the employees and is recognised by the Managing Committee of the petitioner company. The respondent No. 2 submitted a charter of demand to the management of the petitioner company and then approached the Conciliation Officer cum Regional Assistant Labour Commissioner, Ajmer. Since the parties could not settle the matter a failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer: Supplementary demands were also raised by the respondent No. 2. On the basis of the failure report submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the Government issued notification dated October 6, 1982 and made reference of the dispute relating to the demands raised by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 filed a statement of claim in support of its demands. In respect of the demand No. 3 it enclosed Annexures-A and B giving details about 19 employees in whose favour demand had been raised and also details of ten employees who were said to be juniors to them. The Union claimed that these 19 employees were employed in Foundry Department and Stores Department. The Union claimed that although these workers were engaged in the work of the Company in regular and permanent departments and the work was also of permanent nature and they were working under the control of the Supervisor and the Foreman, yet, they were being paid less wages and were being denied the benefits which were admissible to the employees of the company. This was being done in the garb of treating these employees to be employees of the contractor. The Union claimed that the Supervisor and Foreman of the company used to assign the work to these employees, mark their attendance, gave passes for going from one place to another and they were under the direct administrative and financial control of the company. The Union also claimed that iron is melted in the foundry department and is then sent to the other departments for manufacturing purpose and without the foundry department the company cannot run its factory. Similarly, the Stores Department is required to maintain the supply of the goods and other equipments used for the manufacturing purpose. In order to deny benefit of the various legislations, two-three days break is given in the service of these employees and then they are again employed. All these workmen possess requisite qualifications but, they are being denied all the benefits admissible to regular employees. In the reply, the petitioner company asserted that the employees in respect of whom demand No. 3 was raised were not its employees and the correct position is that the work of loading and unloading, transferring heavy castings etc. is being done through the employees of the contractor. Such works are assigned on contract basis. Other employees of the company do not do that work. Such persons are engaged by the Contractor and they work under the control and supervision of the Contractor. No record of such employees is maintained by the company. These workers are governed by the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 and the dispute relating to them cannot form a subject matter of industrial dispute under the 1947 Act. The company also claimed that the reference made by the Government itself was invalid and the Government had no jurisdiction to make such reference. It also pleaded that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear such reference.

(3.) FOR the purpose of evidence workmen filed their affidavits as also of the General Secretary of the respondent No. 2 and on behalf of the petitioner company Shri N. K. Bhuthra, Foreman, filed his affidavit.