Research › Browse › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

1990 DIGILAW 258 (BOM)

GENERAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA

1990-07-17

H.N.KANTHARIA

body1990
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner-Union represents the workmen employed at the canteen of respondent No. 4, Suvidha Catering Service, in the establishment of respondent No. 3, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The said canteen is maintained under the provisions of Section 46 of the Factories Act. The petitioner-Union raised a dispute on behalf of the workmen working in the fourth respondent canteen with the third respondent-Corporation as under : "The Union hereby demands that the workmen working in the canteen of your industrial establishment of Refinery at Mahul, Bombay, be extended basic salary, dearness allowance, other allowance and all other service conditions applicable to them under the long term settlement dated April 12, 1983 currently in force on and from the dates on which the said workmen were employed." Their demand having not been conceded to the petitioner-Union approached the office of the second respondents, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)-I of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central). The Assistant Labour Commissioner by his letter dated December 23, 1986 (Exhibit 'E' to the petition) informed the petitioner-Union that as the workmen employed in the canteen are not the employees of the third respondent-Corporation and are engaged by the Contractor, his office could not intervene in the matter and if need be, the petitioner-Union may approach the Commissioner of Labour. Government of Maharashtra. 2. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-Union invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and filed this writ petition. 3. Mr. Gopalakrishnan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Union, urged that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the appropriate government is the Central Government and, therefore, the second respondent-Assistant Labour Commissioner was wrong in making the impugned order. Mr. Master, learned government counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, submitted that in view of a judgment by this Court is Miscellaneous Petition No. 2300 of 1979 decided on December 5, 1983 in which it was held by Pendse, J. that the employees working at the canteen are not the employees of the third respondent-Corporation, the appropriate Government would not be the Central Government. Mr. Rele, appearing on behalf of the third respondent-Corporation submitted that although the employees working at the canteen are not the employees of the third respondent-Corporation, the appropriate Government in the facts and circumstances of this case would be the Central Government. Mr. Mr. Rele, appearing on behalf of the third respondent-Corporation submitted that although the employees working at the canteen are not the employees of the third respondent-Corporation, the appropriate Government in the facts and circumstances of this case would be the Central Government. Mr. Ganguli, appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent-canteen contractor submitted that the appropriate Govt. here would be the Central Government. 4. It is no doubt true that in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2300 of 1979, decided on December 5, 1983 by Pendse, J. it was clearly held that the canteen employees were not the employees of the Corporation. But in that case no point was raised as to which was the appropriate Government. In fact, I am not called upon to decide here and I do not find necessity to decide whether the employees working in the canteen are the employees working in the canteen are the employees of the third respondent-Corporation or not. The point here is simple in that the employees working with the fourth respondent-canteen contractor are working in the premises of the third respondent-Corporation who maintains the canteen under the provisions of the Factories Act and, therefore, the appropriate Government, in my judgment, will be the Central Government. 5. In this connection, a reference may be usefully made to a decision of this Court in Indian Labour Organisation v. Air India International and others 1987 (54) FLR 583. In the said case, the petitioner-Union represented about 45 employees engaged in four canteens run by Air-India. The Air-India engaged contractor for running these canteens. The Air-India supplied prepared food to these canteens and employees represented by the petitioner-Union distributed the same in the canteen and cleaned the tables and dishes. In May, 1985 the employees working in the four canteens joined the petitioner-Union and thereafter on June 3, 1985 notice of demand was served by the petitioner-Union upon Air-India. The demand made by the petitioner-Union did not receive any positive response and thereupon on June 18, 1985 the petitioner-Union requested the Commissioner of Labour (Central) to admit the matter in conciliation and process the same towards settlement or adjudication at the hands of a competent Court. The Labour Commissioner (Central) by letter dated August 26, 1985 informed Air-India that the contract labour which has been engaged in the essential services is not provided with the statutory legal benefits. The Labour Commissioner (Central) by letter dated August 26, 1985 informed Air-India that the contract labour which has been engaged in the essential services is not provided with the statutory legal benefits. The Labour Commissioner also advised Air-India to regularise the employees working in the canteens as the employees of Air-India. Thereafter, though a large correspondence transpired between the parties, no action was taken by the Labour Commissioner and ultimately the impugned letter dated February 26, 1986 was addressed to the petitioner-Union informing that the appropriate Government is the State Government and, therefore the Labour Commissioner (Central) could not entertain the proceedings. The decision of the Labour Commissioner was challenged. Pendse, J. who decided the said writ petition held that whatever little doubt was there about the appropriate government, the same was settled in view of the Ordinance issued by the President of India on January 28, 1986 and known as "The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Amendment Act, 1986. Pendse, J. pointed out that the ordinance, inter alia, provided that appropriate Government in relation to an establishment in respect of which the appropriate Government under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is the Central Government, is the Central Government. It is not in dispute, in the instant case, that so long as the third respondent-Corporation is concerned, the Central Government is the appropriate Government as was notified by the Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation on June 21, 1984, June 20, 1986 and June 13, 1988. 6. In this view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the second respondent-Assistant Labour Commissioner on December 23, 1986 refusing to admit the dispute in conciliation suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record and the same has to be quashed and set aside. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) to the writ petition. The second respondent-Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)-I is hereby directed to admit in conciliation the Industrial dispute raised by the petitioner-Union. No order as to costs.