SUDARSHAN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in the morning session. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the orders of reference passed by the State Government by which the references have been made to the Industrial Tribunal in exercise of power under section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of the dispute raised by the third respondent.

(2.) We have given careful consideration to the submissions. The said Act of 1970 has been enacted with a view to regulate the contract labour in certain establishments and to provide its abolition in certain circumstances. Section 10 of the said Act confers power on the appropriate Government to abolish the contract labour. Section 30 of the said Act of 1970 deals with the effect of laws and agreements inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act of 1970. It will be necessary to make a reference to section 30 which reads thus:

(3.) Coming back to the demands raised by the third respondent, the basic contention is that the workers of a particular category are the direct employees of the petitioner though the petitioner is showing them as the employees of a contractor. The contention of the third respondent is that the claim of the petitioner that there is a contract entered into between the petitioner and the contractors and that the workers are the employees of the contractor is false. It is the case of the third respondent-Union that the contract is bogus and camouflage. Thus, in substance, the contention of the third respondent in the demand is that the contract does not exist. At this stage, it will be necessary to make a reference to paragraph 103 of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Steel Authority of India Limited which reads thus: