Approach Industrial Tribunal For Regularization Of Workmen As Contract Labour: Karnataka HC Stays BEML's Notification Inviting Group C Positions
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the appropriate remedy is to approach the Industrial Tribunal for the regularization of workmen engaged as contractual labour and for consequential reliefs.
The Court stayed the Bharat Earth Movers Limited (‘BEML’) notification for the appointment of Group-C positions for one month while the workmen approach the appropriate forum having jurisdiction.
The Bench of Justice KS Hemalekha observed, “…the remedy to the petitioner is to approach the industrial tribunal for declaring either the contract labour system under which they had employed was camouflage and that they are direct employees of the respondent No.2 and for consequential relief, the appropriate remedy is to approach the industrial tribunal and this Court has no jurisdiction to absolve the petitioners by regularization on the ground that the work for which the petitioners were engaged as contract labour was perennial in nature, the said question would be on determination of several number of factors.”
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appeared for the Petitioners whereas CGC Shivakumar appeared for the Respondents.
The main issue was that BEML had employed only around 450 permanent workmen and had engaged around 1800 workmen as contract workmen, even though they were working in the permanent and perennial nature of work and performing the same work as regular workmen employed in such posts.
Aggrieved, a writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking directions to the BEML, Respondent herein, to regularize employment of the contract workmen of BEML and to grant them financial benefits and challenging the notification for the post of Group-C positions.
The Counsel for the Petitioner inter alia submitted that the act of BEML was in violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution and the impugned notification was arbitrary.
Per Contra, Counsel for the BEML submitted that there was no relationship between the workmen and BEML as they were the employees of the Labour Contractors.
The Court perused the provisions given under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 and said that the Act applies to the contractors and they might have a legal claim for regularization under the Labour Laws.
But the Court highlighted that the appropriate remedy for the workmen would be to approach the Industrial Tribunal and the Court, under Article 226, had no jurisdiction to absolve the workmen by regularization.
In this context and to support its findings, the Court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (2006) andSecretary, State of Karnataka and others Vs. Umadevi and Ors. (2006).
The Court, while refusing to entertain the petition only on jurisdictional grounds and not on merits, observed, “However, it is essential to assess whether inviting application for Group-C position while existing contract workers remained unregularized is fair and equitable? And prayer No. (b) and (c) are seeking to declare the notification in Annexure-L is illegal and arbitrary. If the contract workers are qualified and have been performing satisfactorily, there may be concerns of fairness in not offering them the opportunity to apply for these positions.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction of keeping the impugned notification in abeyance for a period of one month.
Cause Title: Workmen of BEML Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr.
Appearances:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi and Advocate L Muralidhar Peshwa.
Respondents: CGC Shivakumar and Advocate Prashanth B.K.