http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  7066 of 2001

PETITIONER: Himmat Singh & Ors

RESPONDENT: I.C.I. India Ltd. & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/01/2008

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a  learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing  the writ petitions filed by the appellants.  Challenge before the  High Court was to the order passed by the Presiding Labour  Court (II) U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication case-Arbitration dispute  No. 164 of 1989.  2.      The following question was sent to the Labour Court for  decision under Section 4(iv) of the U.P. State Industrial  Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ’State Act):

"Whether 61 labourers mentioned in the  Appendix should be declared permanent?   If  so, then from which date and with what other  particulars?"

3.      The Labour Court held that 61 labourers connected with  the case do not possess the right to be declared permanent  under the employer- respondent No. 1.  So far as the question  to be made permanent under the contractor, it was found that  they did not want to be declared permanent under the  contractor.

4.      Challenge in the writ petition revolved around the  question as to the effect of the Contract Labour (Regulation  and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the "Act").  In the  background of the definition of the word "employer" as in  clause IV of Section 2(i)(iv) of the State Act, The Indian  Explosive Limited is a manufacturer of Urea and is covered  under the Act.  It is registered under Chapter III of the same  Act and has many licensed contractor including one Abdul  Rehman (hereinafter referred to as the ’Contractor’).  These  licensed contractors engaged many persons to do the work  contracted with them.  Fertilizer Workers Union (hereinafter  referred to as the ’Union’) filed an application under Rule 25  (v)(a) of the U.P. Contract Labour (Regularisation and  Abolition) Rules, 1975 (in short the "Rules") framed  under the  Act before the Labour Commissioner.

5.      This was for the relief that the different persons working  under the different licensed contractors are doing work similar  to the work assigned to the workmen of the company and  should have similar conditions of service regarding wages,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

holidays etc. Proceedings were initiated.  In the proceedings  under Rule 25 of the Rules, the Labour Commissioner by his  order dated 15.12.1984 allowed the application so far as  persons engaged by the Contractor Rehman and one more  licensed contractor but for rest of the persons application for  the Union was dismissed.  The order of the Labour  Commissioner was upheld by the High Court. During  pendency of the proceedings, under Rule 25 disputes were  raised by the Union which is the subject matter of  consideration for the benefit of the workmen engaged by the  Contractor-Rehman. As noted above, the Labour Court  rejected the application.

6.      Mr. P.K.  Jain, learned counsel for the appellants   submitted that the High Court’s approach is hyper technical  and the benefits intended by various beneficial Statutes have  not been kept in view.

7.      Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand  supported the judgment.

8.      A few observations made by the High Court which are  relevant need to be noted.  It was held by the High Court as  follows:

"The labour court has held that the petitioners  were not working as helpers to the fitters; they  were not paid by the company; and were  engaged on contract for intermittent work i.e.  they did not have regular or permanent work.   The work that the petitioners do may be similar  to the work of the workman of the company,  but they are not doing the work that is ordinary  part of the industry.  This is for reason that  they-

?       did not have permanent work; ?       were engaged in intermittent work  and ?       themselves claimed to be workmen of  the contractor Rehman in proceedings  under Rule 25 of the Labour Contract Act  and got benefit under the same."

9.      Similarly, the Labour Court noted that contractor  Rehman had applied to the administration for licence under  the State Contract Labour Act and considering the nature of  the contract licence has been granted to him.

10.     In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.  [2006(12) SC 233] it was inter-alia held as follows: "The workmen whether before the Labour  Court or in writ proceedings were represented  by the same union. A trade union registered  under the Trade Unions Act is entitled to  espouse the cause of the workmen. A definite  stand was taken by the employees that they  had been working under the contractors. It  would, thus, in our opinion, not lie in their  mouth to take a contradictory and  inconsistent plea that they were also the  workmen of the principal employer. To raise  such a mutually destructive plea is  impermissible in law. Such mutually  destructive plea, in our opinion, should not be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

allowed to be raised even in an industrial  adjudication. Common law principles of  estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are  applicable in an industrial adjudication."   

11.     In view of the factual position highlighted above and the  ratio of the decision in Steel Authority’s case (supra), the  inevitable result is that the appeal is sans merit, deserves  dismissal, which we direct with no order as to costs.