Claim For Workmen's Regularisation Doesn't Depend On Appointment Order, But Actual Work Done For Corporation: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) questioning the order of the Industrial Tribunal directing the regularisation of 13 workmen.A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde confirmed the order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the Tribunal and directed that since the demand for regularisation was pending for close to 20 years,...
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Karnataka Power Corporation Limited (KPCL) questioning the order of the Industrial Tribunal directing the regularisation of 13 workmen.
A single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde confirmed the order dated 30.06.2012 passed by the Tribunal and directed that since the demand for regularisation was pending for close to 20 years, the petitioner Corporation shall take steps to regularise the workmen in terms of the directions issued by the Industrial Tribunal. It said:
The claim is not dependent on appointment orders but is based on the actual work done for the Corporation. If the appointment orders are not issued and in the grab of contract labourers (which claim is not established for the reasons recorded supra), and the respondents are made to work since 1991-93 till 2007 and beyond, then the fault lies with the petitioner Corporation in not issuing the appointment orders.
The corporation had approached the court arguing that the Industrial Tribunal had drawn an adverse inference against the petitioner corporation and erroneously concluded that the relationship between the petitioner and the contesting respondents as employer and employee was established.
Further, respondents submitted a representation to the employer alleging that the contractor was not making payment and the said documents were disputed by the respondents.
The workmen opposed the plea stating there was no agreement between the establishment and the contractor as contemplated under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970.
It was argued that the agreements produced by the employer are agreements entered into for the construction of a water supply unit, dam, road and staff quarters and not for the supply of labourers in connection with the work for which the respondents are employed.
It was submitted that till the present day, the contesting respondents were working under the petitioner-Corporation which would indicate that there was demand for work in the said posts and there had been a vacancy since 1991, for such posts, and the respondents have been working in such posts since 1991.
The bench referred to the definition of “Contract Labour” and “Contractor” as defined in Section 2 of the Act. Section 2(1)(b) defines the expression “Contract Labour” and Section 2(1)(c) defines the expression “Contractor”.
Noting that under Section 7 of the Act of 1970, the establishment which seeks to engage the services of contract labour should have a registration under the said provision, the bench held that if the registration is granted, then said establishment can hire the services of contract labourers.
The court said “The petitioner-Corporation did not produce the registration certificates issued under Section 7 of the Act of 1970 for all years from 1991 to 2007. The certificates at Ex. M39 to M53 are the certificates issued under Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act 1961. Thus, it is evident that not all the certificates so produced are the certificates under Section 7 of the Act of 1970. The said certificates cannot replace the requirement of the certificate under Section 7 of the Act of 1970.”
It further observed that the certificates would reveal that the nature of work was not specified, with the mention of a separate list which was not produced by the petitioner-Corporation. Court noted that it was admitted during the course of the hearing that the certificates issued under Section 7 of the Act of 1970 are valid only for a year and there has to be a fresh certificate if the employer intends to hire the contract labourers.
Then it referred to the works undertaken by the respondents—Gardener, mason, water supply etc. It said “When the certificates issued under the Act of 1970 in favour of the Corporation are scrutinised and the nature of the work discharged by the respondents, it is evident that certificates issued by the petitioner-Corporation are not in respect of the jobs discharged by the contesting respondents. The claim made by the contesting respondents relating to the nature of job carried out by them is not controverted by producing the materials by the petitioner-Corporation.”
Court held that the registration certificate enabled the petitioner-corporation to hire contract labourers in respect of certain activities like the construction of the building that did not pertain to the work discharged by the petitioner-corporation.
It noted that the materials on record disclosed that the respondents were not employed for the construction of the building but for the maintenance of the buildings which had been constructed on the premises of the petitioner corporation. The certificates granted to the petitioner-Corporation under the Act of 1970 do not enable the petitioner-Corporation to employ contract labourers to maintain the buildings, gardens, and pipelines, the Court held.
Observing that the respondents were allotted quarters meant for the employees of the petitioner corporation. It said, “On consideration of these records, this Court is of the view that the Industrial Tribunal is justified in holding that the respondents were employed by the petitioner Corporation and not by contractors.”
Accordingly, it dismissed the petition.
Appearance: Advocate Ashok R Kalyan Shetty for Petitioners.
Advocate Raghuveer R Shetty FOR Advocate Chetan Munnoli FOR R1 TO R6,8,11 AND 13.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
Case Title: The Karnataka Power Corporation Limited & ANR AND K.N. Ningegowda & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No 75671 OF 2013