On 18th June, a bench of Jharkhand High Court consisting of Justice S.N. Pathak held that where the workmen have sought for parity in pay and other benefits at par with the regular employees of TELCO Ltd. but the initial appointment letter of the workmen has not been issued by the said company but by TELCO Recreation Club which is a separate department of the TELCO Ltd., the question of parity in pay etc. with the employees of the TELCO Ltd. does not arise.

Facts of the case:

The present writ application was filed by TELCO Ltd. which is a Company involved in the business of manufacturing and sale of automobiles. The present application has been filed by the petitioner after being aggrieved by the decision of the Labour court held that the respondent No. 2 who were the employee of by TELCO Recreation Club are entitled to get salary and other benefits at par with the other employees of the Petitioner Company. However the petitioner claims that the two companies are different with different management therefore the award of the labour court was challenged in the present petition.

Arguments on behalf of the petitioner-management:

 Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned Sr. counsel assisted by other counsels representing the petitioner submitted the following:

  1. Learned Sr. Counsel argued that findings recorded in the Award of the Industrial Tribunal is perverse, improper, not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and against the weight of evidence, which is quite copious and hence the same is untenable in the eyes of law and as such the same is fit to be set aside.
  2. It was submitted that before notification dated 17.09.1998, the appropriate Government never treated the petitioner – management as an employer nor had conciliated prior to submission of its failure report or ever noticed the petitioner as an employer. Thus Petitioner-management should not have been substituted as an employer of the respondent-workmen on the basis of invalid reference.
  3. It was also argued that there does not exist “Industrial Dispute” as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act between the petitioner-Management and the respondent-workmen, as the workmen are not the employees of petitioner-Management, which is totally a different establishment.
  4. The respondent-workmen were employed by the Managing Committee of the TELCO Recreation Club on specific terms and conditions of employment. Hence, the employees of TELCO Recreation Club cannot be treated to be the employees of petitioner-management.
  5. Petitioner-management cannot be held liable for any part of the liability of TELCO Recreation Club towards its employees in a situation when both are different and distinct organizations.

Submission of the respondent-workmen:

Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Sr. Counsel strenuously submitted the following:

  1. The Tribunal had rightly passed the Award holding that the workmen were entitled to be treated as workmen of the petitioner-management and accordingly, are entitle for payment and other benefits at par with other employees of the petitioner-management.
  2. The vast difference of salary and other benefits between these workmen and those working in petitioner-management was unjustified and harassing and as such, Award passed by the Tribunal should be implemented.
  3. The TELCO Recreation Club was merely a department/ wing of the petitioner-management and the petitioner-management has provided premises, furniture, electricity, water to the club as also its securities.
  4. The company also provides wages and other benefits to the workers of the Club and the petitioner-management has direct control and supervision over them through a Managing Committee and General Manager of the Company is the President of the Company who is all in all of the said Club, and thus, there exists the relationship of employer-employee.

Observation and judgment of the court:

The Hon’ble bench observed the following:

  1. The impugned Award suffers from patent illegalities and therefore, it can comfortably be said that the same is based upon errors of law.
  2. The concerned workmen were being governed by the rules, regulations and bye-laws of the Club and not the petitioner-Management. Even the disciplinary control was of the Club and not of the Management.
  3. The Club was incorporated as a separate body and concerned workmen were admittedly appointed by the Club and not by the petitioner-Management. The claim of the concerned workmen is not sustainable.

Thus it was held that when the initial appointment letter of the workmen has not been issued by the petitioner-Management, the question of parity in pay etc. with the employees of the petitioner-Management does not arise and as such the impugned Award was set aside.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Share this Document :

Picture Source : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jharkhand_High_Court.jpg

 
Anusree Deb