The Supreme Court on Friday deprecated the unfortunate state of affairs prevailing in the field of labour relations in the country wherein employers often resorted to contract employment and thereby curtailed the statutory rights of workers.
A Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and C.K. Prasad in its judgment said: “in order to avoid their liability under various labour statutes, employers are very often resorting to subterfuge by trying to show that their employees are, in fact, the employees of a contractor. It is high time that this subterfuge comes to an end.”
The Bench expressing its anguish said: “Labour statutes were meant to protect the employees/workmen because it was realised that the employers and the employees are not on an equal bargaining position. Hence, protection of employees was required so that they may not be exploited. However, this new technique of subterfuge has been adopted by some employers in recent years in order to deny the rights of the workmen under various labour statutes by showing that the workmen concerned are not their employees but are the employees/workmen of a contractor, or
that they are merely daily wage or short-term or casual employees when in fact they are doing the work of regular employees.”
The Bench made it clear that the Supreme Court could not countenance such practices any more.
“Globalisation/liberalisation in the name of growth cannot be at the human cost of exploitation of workers.”
In the instant case, appellant Bhiklwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakaris Ltd. was aggrieved against the Rajasthan High
Court judgment upholding the Labour Court's finding that the contract employees were workmen of the company and not that of the contractor.
Dismissing the appeal, the Bench said: “It has been clearly stated by the Labour Court that subterfuge was resorted to by the appellant to show that the workmen concerned were only workmen of a contractor. The Labour Court has held that the workmen were the employees of the appellant and not employees of the contractor. Cogent reasons have been given by the Labour Court to come to this finding. The Labour Court has held that, in fact, the workmen concerned were working under the orders of the officers of the appellant, and were being paid Rs. 70 per day, while the workmen/employees of the contractor were paid Rs. 56 per day.”
The Bench said it was implicit in the finding of the Labour Court that there was subterfuge by the appellant to avoid its liabilities under various labour statutes.
“We are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly refused to interfere with this finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court.”
A Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and C.K. Prasad in its judgment said: “in order to avoid their liability under various labour statutes, employers are very often resorting to subterfuge by trying to show that their employees are, in fact, the employees of a contractor. It is high time that this subterfuge comes to an end.”
The Bench expressing its anguish said: “Labour statutes were meant to protect the employees/workmen because it was realised that the employers and the employees are not on an equal bargaining position. Hence, protection of employees was required so that they may not be exploited. However, this new technique of subterfuge has been adopted by some employers in recent years in order to deny the rights of the workmen under various labour statutes by showing that the workmen concerned are not their employees but are the employees/workmen of a contractor, or
that they are merely daily wage or short-term or casual employees when in fact they are doing the work of regular employees.”
The Bench made it clear that the Supreme Court could not countenance such practices any more.
“Globalisation/liberalisation in the name of growth cannot be at the human cost of exploitation of workers.”
In the instant case, appellant Bhiklwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakaris Ltd. was aggrieved against the Rajasthan High
Court judgment upholding the Labour Court's finding that the contract employees were workmen of the company and not that of the contractor.
Dismissing the appeal, the Bench said: “It has been clearly stated by the Labour Court that subterfuge was resorted to by the appellant to show that the workmen concerned were only workmen of a contractor. The Labour Court has held that the workmen were the employees of the appellant and not employees of the contractor. Cogent reasons have been given by the Labour Court to come to this finding. The Labour Court has held that, in fact, the workmen concerned were working under the orders of the officers of the appellant, and were being paid Rs. 70 per day, while the workmen/employees of the contractor were paid Rs. 56 per day.”
The Bench said it was implicit in the finding of the Labour Court that there was subterfuge by the appellant to avoid its liabilities under various labour statutes.
“We are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly refused to interfere with this finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court. There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court.”
