Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 800 (JHR)

Bokaro Ispat Kamgar Union v. Chairman, Sail

2001-12-07

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2001
JUDGMENT S. J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner Bokaro Ispat Kamgar Union for a direction on the management of Bokaro Steel Plant to absorb the employees of Bokaro Steel City Central Consumer Co-operative Stores Limited (for short Co-operative Stores Ltd.) and to pay them salary and other benefits at par with the employees of Bokaro Steel Limited. The writ petition was earlier heard by this Court and was dismissed on 7th December, 1998 on the ground of alternative remedy and the said order was affirmed in LPA No. 18 of 1999. However, the Supreme Court set aside the order of 18th August, 2000, restoring the writ petition to the original file of the Court for decision on merit. The parties were heard accordingly, in detail. 2. The main plea was taken by the counsel for the petitioner that the Co- operative Stores Ltd. is an organ of Bokaro Steel Limited. For all purposes, it is being run by the management of Bokaro Steel Limited and the Principal Employer of employees of Cooperative Stores Limited is the Bokaro Steel Ltd. 3. Counsel for the petitioner placed relevant facts to trace out the history of Cooperative Stores Ltd., as narrated hereunder. The Co-operative Stores Ltd. is a Society registered under the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act (Act VI of 1935). Its first meeting was held on 15th August. 1962 under the Presidentship of Sri Ramchandra Rant and was constituted to provide essential commodities to the employees of the Bokaro Steel Ltd. The bye-laws of the Society was amended in pursuance of a decision dated 28th December, 1966 and an extra-ordinary General Body meeting was held on 25th April, 1967 for nomination of Secretary. 1962 under the Presidentship of Sri Ramchandra Rant and was constituted to provide essential commodities to the employees of the Bokaro Steel Ltd. The bye-laws of the Society was amended in pursuance of a decision dated 28th December, 1966 and an extra-ordinary General Body meeting was held on 25th April, 1967 for nomination of Secretary. Treasurer and Members of the Consumers Co-operative Stores Ltd. Counsel for the petitioner place reliance on the amended bye-laws, added in pursuance of April, 1962 decision, to suggest that the Co-operative Stores Ltd. is an organ of Bokaro Steel Ltd. Therein, after paragraph No. 2 of Sub-Clause (a) of Column 22, following additions were made : "The employer company shall nominate the Chairman and Treasurer of the society and shall be entitled to nominate, including the Chairman and Treasurer, a total of 3 members or one-third of the total Member of members, whichever is less, for the committee of management, provided the employer company subscribe 50% of the issued shares or 250 shares whichever is less. But, if the financial assistance in the shape of loan in the working capital or grant-in-aid is made, then, the right to nominate members shall be limited to only one." 4. An agreement was entered into between the management of Bokaro Steel Ltd. and Negotiation Committee to supply the essential commodities to the employees of the Bokaro Steel Ltd. vide memorandum dated 27th October. 1970 and the management of Bokaro Steel Ltd. (BSL for short) explicitly decided to provide essential commodities to the Co-operative Stores Ltd. 5. The nomination of Chairman and Treasurer of Society. Co-operative Stores Ltd., were made by the BSL all the time including the nomination of Treasurer, made vide letter dated 16th January, 1973. whereby, H.K. Garg, A.E. (F) was nominated by BSL as Treasurer of the Society. Co-operative Stores Ltd. By another letter dated 4th June, 1974 Sri S.K. Choudhary, Accounts Executive, was nominated as Treasurer of the Society by the BSL. 6. The Chairman of the Society, Cooperative Stores Ltd., was nominated by letter dated 20th March, 1974, nominating Col. N.K. Sinha, Town Administrator, BSL. 7. Time to time such letters of nomination were issued, including letter dated 22nd April, 1974 etc. 6. The Chairman of the Society, Cooperative Stores Ltd., was nominated by letter dated 20th March, 1974, nominating Col. N.K. Sinha, Town Administrator, BSL. 7. Time to time such letters of nomination were issued, including letter dated 22nd April, 1974 etc. The management of BSL was also helping to provide the essential commodities to its employees in respect to which a meeting was held in the office of the Divisional Personnel Manager on 20th April, 1979 and an agreement was made on 19th June, 1979. In the meeting of NJC held on 25th May, 1983 it was agreed to provide essential commodities to the employees of BSL through the Society, Co-operative Stores Ltd. 8. The working capital and other items were given to the Society by the management. In this respect, a decision dated 30th February, 1984 was brought to the notice of the Court. The allotment order, issued by Assistant Estate Officer (A) providing building to run temporary shop by the Society, as made vide letter dated 22nd May, 1983 was followed by similar letter of allotment of shops issued by Town Administrator, BSL on 6th June, 1986. 9. The management of BSL approved the increase of monthly subsidy for operating expenses and issued orders from time to time. The same was brought on record by giving reference of letters dated 25th April, 1986, 1st May, 1986, 10th may. 1988 etc. 10. Subsequent agreement between the management and NJC on 5th July, 1989 for supply of essential commodities to the employees of BSL as per agreement dated 30th July, 1973, as reiterated on 5th July, 1989, was highlighted by the counsel for the petitioner. The management of BSL also took part in other matters of functioning of the Society. Co-operative Stores Ltd.. were placed by the counsel giving reference of order of allotment of quarter issued on 15th October, 1990, document of recovery of credit cell from the consumer of employees of BSI made on 3rd August, 1992, no dues certificate, issued to one or other employees of BSL to get the retiral benefits were also highlighted. Reliance was placed on no dues certificate dated 30th August. 1993 and other documents. 11. It was brought on record that the management of BSL made payment to other organisations on behalf of the Society. Cooperative Stores Ltd. and other steps taken on its behalf, for example. Reliance was placed on no dues certificate dated 30th August. 1993 and other documents. 11. It was brought on record that the management of BSL made payment to other organisations on behalf of the Society. Cooperative Stores Ltd. and other steps taken on its behalf, for example. Manager, F & ACF of BSL wrote to the Administrator, BSL on 14th July, 1995 regarding renewal of Adality insurance commission for the- employees of Co-operative Stores Ltd. Another letter was written by the said officer on 26th September, 1995 regarding renewal of fire and burgalary policies in respect of Co-operative Stores Ltd., followed by letter dated 9th October. 1995, written by the Administrator of Co-operative Stores Ltd. to the Deputy Chief Finance Manager. BSL. 12. It appears that one Aniruddh on behalf of Ispat Kamgar Union wrote a letter to the Managing Director of BSL on 12th October, 1995, wherein, for the first time, request was made to BSL authorities to absorb the employees of Co- operative Stores Ltd. in the BSL. which was followed by a demand made by the General Secretary, Co-operative Stores Ltd. on 3rd April. 1996. The salary could not be paid to the employees of the Co-operative Stores Ltd. since 1995-06. Therefore, the General Secretary of Bokaro Ispat Kamgar Union by letter dated 12th August. 1996 requested the management of BSL to pay salary to the employees of the Co-operative Stores Ltd. However, no action having been taken, the writ petition was preferred. 13. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on numerous decisions of Supreme Court and other High Courts. The Supreme Courts decision in the case of Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union, reported in 2000 (3) SCALE page 255 was relied upon. In the said case, the I.O.B. workers were aggrieved for plotting a society in the name and style of Indian Overseas Bank Staff Co-operative Canteen. The Bank denied its relationship of employer and employee between the management of I.O.B. and workers of the canteen. Taking into consideration the relevant facts, nature and extent of assistance, financial and otherwise inkind, held that there may not be any statutory obligation, but the provision of canteen had become a part of the service condition of the employees, not only essential for the employees but for help to contribute for the efficiency of service by the employees of the Bank. The promoters of the canteen were held to be the employees of the (sic) and it was observed that the Bank can not absolve of its liabilities, the canteen being its instrumentality and agent. 14. Reliance was also placed on Supreme Courts decision in G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in 2000 (5) SCALE page 569, wherein, taking into consideration the fact that the employers of the canteen were providing food to the inmates of the hostel, supply of food being an essential requirement, the employees of the canteen were held to be the employees of the University. Reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Jacob M. Puthuparambil and Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority and Ors., reported in (1991) 1 SCC page 28. wherein, the Court held that in a developing country like India, where there are a vast surplus labour markets, large number of employment, the employer can dictate his terms of employment, taking advantage of the absence of the bargaining power in the other. On the facts and circumstances, it has been held that the employees serving for a reasonable long period and having requisite qualification for the job. deserve to be regularised. 15. In the present case, the sole question arises as to whether the employees of Co-operative Stores Ltd. had any relationship of employee and employer with the management of BSL or not. 16. in the ease of Hussainbhai v. The Alath Factory Thezhilall Union, reported in (1978) 4 SCC page 257 the Supreme Court held that the true test is where a worker or group of workers labour to produce goods or services and these goods or services are for the business of another, that other is. in fact, the employer. It has economic control over the workers subsistence, skill and continued employment. If it, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is virtually laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex-contractu is of no consequence, when, no lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, the naked truth is discerned. 17. If it, for any reason, chokes off, the worker is virtually laid off. The presence of intermediate contractors with whom alone the workers have immediate or direct relationship ex-contractu is of no consequence, when, no lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors governing employment, the naked truth is discerned. 17. In the present case, there is nothing on the record to suggest any direct relation ship between the employees of Co-operative Stores Ltd. and the management of M/s. Bokaro Steel Ltd. The by-laws of the Co-operative Stores Ltd. stipulates member under Article 7 as mentioned thereunder. It is in the capacity of a member, the officials of BSL are performing certain job of the Co-operative Stores Ltd. The funds, as to be generated, has been laid down under Article 6 of the by- laws, which includes issuance of shares, by accepting deposits, by raising loans and cash, credit, by donations and by such other means, as the managing committee of the Co-operative Stores Ltd. may consider desirable. There is no provision made for raising fund from the Bokaro Steel Ltd. and thus, amount, if any, spent by BSL, ran not be termed to be investment of BSL. though it may be termed as shares or loan/cash credit or donation to the Co-operative Stores Ltd. 18. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the employees of the Co- operative Stores Ltd. are performing job which is the integral part of the BSL nor there is any thing on the record to suggest that the materials shown by the employees through the Co-operative Stores Ltd. belong to the management of BSL. The bare facts, as pleaded in the writ petition and narrated above, even lifting the veil or looking at the conspectus of factors, governing employment, does not reveal any relationship of employee and employer between the employees of Cooperative Stores Ltd. at one hand and the management of BSL on the other. 19. Further, if the case of the petitioner is accepted that the employees working in the Co-operative Stores Ltd. are the employees of Bokaro Steel Plant, there was no occasion for the petitioner to ask for absorption of such employers under the Bokaro Steel Ltd. 20. 19. Further, if the case of the petitioner is accepted that the employees working in the Co-operative Stores Ltd. are the employees of Bokaro Steel Plant, there was no occasion for the petitioner to ask for absorption of such employers under the Bokaro Steel Ltd. 20. Having regard to the farts and cir-circumstances, the petitioner having failed to make out any case, no direction can be given to absorb the employees, working in Co operative Stores Ltd., in the BSL nor the management of BSL can be directed to pay salary to those employees. The writ petition, being devoid of merit. Is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 21. Writ petition dismissed.