Factory Manager, Nuvoco Vistas Corporation Limited, Cement Plant v. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Labour Department, D.K.S

Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate. For Respondent No.2: Formal party. For Respondent No.3: None present, though served. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 06/05/2024

1. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 8-12-2005 passed by the State Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh, Raipur in Reference Case No.1/MPIR Act/I/2002 by which the learned Industrial Court while answering the reference made by the State Government under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 in respect of the issue related to the Contract Labour (Regulation & {W.P.No.464/2006} Abolition) Act, 1970 in affirmative, has directed the petitioner herein that the employees of respondent No.3 be treated at par with regular employees and facilities & allowances be given to them equally.

2. Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the Industrial Court has made basis of paragraph 166 of the Ramanujam & R.P. Nivetia Award 1983 notified in the Gazette on 20-7-1983, which has been set aside by the Orissa High Court in 1986 by its judgment passed in the matter of The Management of Hira Cement Works v. The Union of India and another1 and therefore the impugned award is not sustainable in the eye of law and bad in law and is liable to be set aside.

3. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State / respondent No.1, would submit that it is the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 and the State Government had only made reference exercising the power under Section 51 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 in respect of the issue related to the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, as such, the State Government is a formal party.

4. Respondent No.2 is also a formal party.

5. None present for respondent No.3, though served.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 1 1986 SCC OnLine Ori 322 {W.P.No.464/2006}

7. A careful perusal of the impugned award would show that the award was passed on the basis of the Ramanujam & R.P. Nivetia Award 1983 notified in the Gazette on 20-7-1983 relying upon paragraph 166 and the learned Industrial Court in paragraph 20 of the impugned award has recorded a finding that in the petitioner establishment contract workers are getting different treatment and being paid wages and given facilities much less as compared to regular workers of the establishment though doing the same job, which is contrary to the recommendations of the Wage Board Award of the Ramanujam & R.P. Nivetia Award 1983, and observed in paragraph 20 as under: - “20. From the evidence on record we find it proved that in second party establishment contract workers are getting different treatment and being paid wages and given facilities much less as compared to regular workers of the establishment though doing the same job. This is against the binding recommendations of wage board Award as referred to above. Thus a direction needs be given to the employer-Second party to provide all facilities and pay all allowances to contractor workers at par with regular employees of the Co. in compliance of Ramanujam & Nivetia wage board Award. So far as term No.2 of the Reference is concerned, it is incumbent and mandatory to provide all safety appliances to contractor workers engaged in unloading of coal & gypsum at Nipania siding hence such direction needs be given to the employer. Regarding payment of wages to such workers @ Rs.600/- per wagon is concerned it is an admitted position that they are getting more than this sum, though first party’s contention is that their demand was for Rs.1600/- but due to typing mistake in reference this lower figure has occurred, but we can’t go beyond term of reference, hence no direction needs be given in this respect. ...”

8. In The Management of Hira Cement Works (supra), a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in paragraphs 9 and 10, quashing / {W.P.No.464/2006} setting aside paragraph 166 of the Ramanujam & R.P. Nivetia Award 1983 relating to the abolition of contract labour, has held as under: - The aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court “9. prohibited the Court from looking into the question and held that it was only for the Government to consider the same under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act. Such observation as to prohibition would equally apply to a tribunal or a body of arbitrators under the Industrial Disputes Act before whom such question comes up for consideration by way of reference. In this view of the matter, we would conclude that the arbitrators had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in respect of abolition of the system of contract labour which was Demand No. 12 in the award in question and which has been answered in paragraph 166 of the award, We would accordingly quash that part of the award contained in paragraph 166 pertaining to the abolition of contract labour. Since the order of the manufacturer dated 18th October, 1978, is based solely on the aforesaid award and the award has been declared by us to be invalid, the said order of opposite party no. 2 also cannot be sustained and we would accordingly quash the said order in Annexure-3.

10. In the ultimate result, therefore, the arbitration award relating to the abolition of contract labour pertaining to Demand No. 12 and as provided in paragraph 166 of the award in Annexure-4 and the order dated 18th of October, 1978 passed by opposite party no. 2 in Annexure-3 in each of O.J.C. Nos. 1507, 1508 and 1509 of 1978 are quashed. So far as O.J.C. No. 1495 of 1978 is concerned, the arbitration award relating to abolition of contract labour pertaining to Demand No. 12 and as provided in paragraph 166 of the award in Annexure-2 is hereby quashed. All the writ applications are accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.”

9. Since paragraph 166 of the Ramanujam & R.P. Nivetia Award 1983 itself on which reliance has been placed by the Industrial Court, has been set aside and no further additional reason has been assigned by {W.P.No.464/2006} the Industrial Court to grant benefits to the members of respondent No.3 Union, the impugned award passed by the Industrial Court dated 8-12-2005 is set aside, meaning thereby, the reference is rejected.

10. The writ petition is allowed to the extent sketched herein-above. Since no one appears for respondent No.3 and no representation is made on its behalf, no order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Soma