BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD Vs. ANIL
LAWS(SC)-2006-11-26
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on November 07,2006

BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
ANIL Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

UNITED PHOSPHORUS LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(GJH)-2010-4-277] [REFERRED TO]
ALSTOM INDIA LIMITED VS. SIDRAM AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2015-11-177] [REFERRED TO]
V KESAVAN VS. PRESIDING OFFICER II ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2012-6-23] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEEDLE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2019-6-672] [REFERRED TO]
KONE ELEVATOR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(APH)-2012-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
LAL CHAND VS. M/S. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. AND ANR. [LAWS(P&H)-2017-12-318] [REFERRED TO]
THE MANAGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL HOUSE LIMITED VS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FIRST ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-702] [REFERRED TO]
BAYER BIO SCIENCES PVT LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(APH)-2010-11-24] [REFERRED TO]
HANON AUTOMATIVE SYSTEMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-99] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF FORD INDIA PRIVATE LTD. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-338] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF NEEDLE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2013-2-72] [REFERRED TO]
DHANALAXMI BANK LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-267] [REFERRED TO]
DHANALAXMI BANK LTD VS. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT [LAWS(MAD)-2019-11-267] [REFERRED TO]
V RAVICHANDRAN VS. MANAGEMENT M R F LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-336] [REFERRED TO]
LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED PONDICHERRY VS. PRESIDING OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-2011-2-578] [REFERRED TO]
CHENNAI PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD CHENNAI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER THE PRINCIPAL LABOUR COURT CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2011-4-483] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND ORS. VS. SHIVANANDA AND ORS. [LAWS(KAR)-2016-3-122] [REFERRED TO]
CHAUBISI PLASTIC PVT LTD. VS. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2008-7-287] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.H. Kapadia, J. - (1.)What was the subject of the dispute decided by the Labour Court vide its Award dated 5.7.1996 in ADJ case No. 31/90 to 44/90 This is the question which we are required to answer in this civil appeal.
(2.)The facts giving rise to the civil appeal are as follows: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited ("BHEL") is the company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at New Delhi. Respondents 1 to 14 herein moved the Conciliation Officer under Section 2-A of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the said 1947 Act") stating, that there was a principal employer; that K.P. Singh was a contractor under whom they were working as contract labour; that the services were unlawfully terminated w.e.f. 1.12.1988, and accordingly, the contractor should be asked to take them back in service with full back wages w.e.f. 1.12.1988. On 19.7.1989 BHEL filed its reply before the Conciliation Officer inter alia stating that, respondents 1 to 14 herein were engaged by the contractor; that the contractor was engaged by BHEL; and, that there was no employer-employee relationship between BHEL on one hand and the said respondents on the other hand.
(3.)Ultimately, the matter was referred to the Labour Court by way of a reference under Section 4-K of the said 1947 Act. Before the Labour Court BHEL contended, that respondents 1 to 14 were malis (gardeners); that they were engaged by the contractor; that these malis were required to clean parks; that in the vast area of land owned by BHEL, they were required to keep the campus neat ant clean; that they had worked for a brief period 1.6.1988 to 24.10.1988; and, that they were casual workmen, who were not entitled to be given work on all the days and, therefore, there was no industrial dispute between BHEL and the said respondents within the meaning of Section 2-A of the said 1947 Act. By the written statement, BHEL further contended, that respondents 1 to 14 were never paid wages by BHEL; that they never worked under their supervision and control, and that the rights, if any, of the said respondents were only against their contractor. BHEL further contended that the period of contract commenced on 1.6.1988 and ended on 24.10.1988.
At this stage, we quote hereinbelow the terms of reference made to the Labour Court:

Whether termination of services of Anil son of Shri Vikram Singh by his employers from 1.12.88 was justified and/ or lawful If not then the benefit/ relief the worker concerned is entitled to ....



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.