2003 (7) TMI 732 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Confirms Workmen as Employees, Dismisses Appeals and Upholds Lower Courts' Findings Over Appellant's Claims.

Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd. Versus State Of U.P. And Ors.

The SC dismissed the appellant's appeals, finding no merit in their submissions. The concurrent findings of the LC and HC were upheld, confirming that the ... Industrial disputes - non-compliance of the provisions of Section 6-N of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act') - recovery - Challenged the prosecution should not be launched u/s 14-A of the Act - HELD THAT:- The High Court took note of the fact that the respondents-workmen were engaged for working as gardeners in the factory premises, campus and residential colony of the appellant; Ram Swarup, Head Mali was admittedly employed by the appellant; he used to supervise the work of the respondents-workmen; another employee of the appellant, namely, Sadhu Ram used to maintain the record of attendance of the respondents-workmen; when dispute arose consequent upon disengagement of the workman, he destroyed the attendance register by tearing it off at the instance of one Mr. Varshney who was working as Manager with the appellant. Further, in the impugned order, the High Court observed that if the respondents-workmen were in fact engaged by independent contractors, the record of their attendance should have been maintained by them and to show their control and supervision of the work performed by the workmen. Thus, considering the evidence, the facts 'and circumstances of the case and findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court, the High Court held that the workmen were under the direct employment, supervision and control of the appellant observing that sometimes, the employers, with a view to get over stringent provision of the labour law resort to engage the workmen through some intermediary and such an arrangement has to be termined as artificial. The finding that the respondents-workmen were the employees of the appellant, does not rest merely on the test of control. The other evidence and facts and circumstance of the case were also kept in mind in recording such a finding including a vital fact that the appellant did not produce the records alleging that they were not available which led to drawing adverse inference against them. It is not possible for us to hold that such concurrent findings recorded by the Labour Court and the High Court that the workmen were to be treated as the employees of the appellant are either perverse or based on no evidence or untenable at all. From the impugned order, it also does not appear that any contention was urged before the High Court that the respondents-workmen did not net-work for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months. Be that as it may, in view of the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court as affirmed by the High Court that the respondents-workmen worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months, we do not find any good reason to take a different view. Thus, we find no merit in any of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. Consequently, these appeals are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, they stand dismissed with no order as to costs. Issues Involved:1. Perverse findings by the Labour Court and High Court.2. Application of the test of control and definition of 'employer' u/s 2(i)(iv) of the Act.3. Compliance with Section 6-N regarding 240 days of work.Summary:Issue 1: Perverse Findings by the Labour Court and High CourtThe appellant contended that the findings recorded by the Labour Court and affirmed by the High Court were perverse and contrary to the evidence. The Labour Court concluded that the appellant was the principal employer based on evidence such as the statements of Ram Swarup and Sadhu Ram, who were involved in supervising and maintaining the attendance of the respondents-workmen. The High Court concurred, noting that the respondents-workmen were engaged in the appellant's factory premises and residential colony, and that the attendance records were destroyed by an employee of the appellant. The High Court observed that the engagement of the contractor was sham and not genuine, and the respondents-workmen were, for all practical purposes, employees of the appellant.Issue 2: Application of the Test of Control and Definition of 'Employer' u/s 2(i)(iv) of the ActThe appellant argued that the High Court erred in applying the test of control, asserting that the respondents-workmen were not part of the industry. The High Court, referencing the case of Hussainbhai Calicut v. The Alath Factory Thizolali Union Kozhikode and Ors., held that the workmen were under the direct employment, supervision, and control of the appellant. The High Court emphasized that the involvement of the alleged contractors was merely figurative and that the engagement of the contractor was a device to camouflage the status of the respondents-workmen. The Supreme Court found no good reason to upset the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and the High Court.Issue 3: Compliance with Section 6-N Regarding 240 Days of WorkThe appellant contended that the respondents-workmen had not worked for 240 days to complain of a violation of Section 6-N. However, the Supreme Court noted that this contention was not urged before the High Court. The Labour Court and the High Court had found that the respondents-workmen worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months. The Supreme Court saw no reason to take a different view.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.