Allahabad High Court
B.H.E.L. Contract Workers Union Thru ... vs B.H.E.L. Thru Its Chairman And M.D. And ... on 19 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:140711
Reserved on : 11.08.2025
Delivered on : 19.08.2025
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6234 of 2010
Petitioner :-B.H.E.L.Contract Workers Union Thru Its Gen. Secy.
Respondent :- B.H.E.L.Thru Its Chairman And M.D. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- K.M. Asthana,R.M. Asthana
Counsel for Respondent :- Abhishek Mishra,Ashish Mishra,Ashok Khare,S.C.,Sandeep Saxena
Along with
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 26356 of 2009
Petitioner :-B.H.E.L.Contract Workers Union Thru Its Gen. Secy.
Respondent :- B.H.E.L.Thru Its Chairman And M.D. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- K.M. Asthana,K.P. Agrawal,Kandarp Narayan Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Sandeep Saxena,Abhishek Mishra,S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Heard Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for respondents.
2. These writ petitions were filed on behalf of Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited Contract Worker Union in the year 2010.
3. A list of persons working on contract at BHEL, Jhansi was annexed along with this writ petition as Annexure No.-5, which disclosed that 32 persons were working as fitter trade, 10 persons were working on contract as Electrician Trade,, 7 persons were working on contract as Wireman Trade.
4. The petitioners have prayed that their services be regularized since they were working for last many years as well as they have sought a direction that respondent authority may not proceed with regular selection in pursuance to advertisement No.03/2009 for appointment on various posts of Electrician, Fitter, Wireman, Electronics, Welder, Machinist, Turner and Draftsman Mechanic Trades.
5. This Court has passed following order on 05.02.2010 :-
"Heard learned counsel Sri K.M.Ashtana for the petitioners and Sri K.N. Mishra for the respondent.
The petitioners have come up with a prayer that the respondents have advertised the post against which petitioners have to be accommodated on regular basis. Sri Mishra points out that in respect of the similar selections earlier also made in a Writ Petition No. 26356 of 2009, was filed which has been entertained and the following orders have been passed on 22.5.2009.
"Heard Sri K.P. Agrawal, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri K.M. Asthana for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Sandeep Saxena for respondents.
Respondents are directed to file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks. The petitioner shall have three weeks thereafter to file rejoiner affidavit.
List in second week of July, 2009.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as interim measure the respondents are directed not to disturb the status of members of the petitioner on the post on which they are working. However, selection in pursuant to advertisement in question shall go on and be completed but any appointment made in pursuance of said selection shall be subject to final decision to be taken in the writ petition."
Keeping in view the submissions raised advanced the writ petition cannot be allowed at this stage itself as per the relief prayed for in the writ petition.
In view of this the respondents may hold the selections in pursuance of the impugned advertisement and may complete the same but the appointments made shall be subject to the final out come of the writ petition.
The counter affidavit may file, within one week for rejoinder. Connect and list with writ petition No. 26356 of 2009. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Status of the petitioners as existing on today shall not be disturbed"
6. When aforesaid both writ petitions came before this Court, for final hearing after about 15 years, this Court has passed following order on 18.07.2025:-
"1. Heard Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel for B.H.E.L. for some time.
2. List of members of petitioners? association is annexed along with this writ petition as Annexure-4.
3. All members mentioned in the list annexed will file a notarized affidavit whether they have taken advantage of interim order dated 05.02.2010 or not as well as their present status of service. Learned counsel for petitioners shall also file resolution of Association prior to filing of this writ petition. All affidavits shall be filed within 10 days from today.
4. List this case on 28.07.2025 at 12.30 for final hearing.
5. On next date fixed, respondent-3 (Additional General Manager, H.R. Department, B.H.E.L. Administrative Building, Jhansi) shall remain present along with all records. "
7. In pursuance of above order, petitioners have filed a supplementary affidavit on 27.07.2025, wherein personal affidavits of persons working on contract basis and mentioned in list annexed along with this writ petition were also filed that in pursuance of interim order they are still working. It was specifically declared that some of persons named in said list have died and some of persons have meanwhile retired after completing age of 60 years. For reference the contents of paragraph Nos.5, 6 and 7 of the supplementary affidavit are reproduced hereinafter :-
"5. That along with the writ petition, the petitioner has enclosed the list of contract workers, in Fitter Trade (32 in numbers), Electricians Trade (10 in numbers), Wiremen Trade (7 in numbers) and in Draftsman, Turner, Welder Trade (18 in numbers), who were continuously working in their respective trades in B.H.E.L. Jhansi after completing their apprenticeship Training in different years at the relevant time.
6. That the petitioner enclose herewith the Separate Notary Affidavits of Contract Workers in compliance to the order passed this Hon'ble Court in the above noted writ petition. The said workers/deponent have been continuously working and discharging their duties in B.H.E.L. Jhansi in different trades much prior to passing of the interim order dated 05.02.2010 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the writ petition and are still discharging their duties in their duties continuously without any break in their respective trades, except Jag Ram Verma at Serial No.25 (page 52), who was working in Fitter Trade and has died and Shri Kalyan Singh at Serial No.30 (page 50) who has left the Job in B.H.E.L. Jhansi after his appointment on the post of Pump Operator on regular basis in Irrigation Department of the State. Further the Notary Affidavit of Brijesh Srivastava could not be obtained as presently he is not working in B.H.E.L. Jhansi.
The details of the contract workers, who are still working and discharging their duties in their respective trades in B.H.E.L. Jhansi, who are submitting their notary affidavits before this Hon'ble Court in compliance to the order, are mentioned here in below
:-
Fitter Trade :
i. Daryab Singh - - Serial No.5
ii. Santosh Dubey - Serial No.6
iii. Om Prakash Nayak - Serial No.7
iv. Surendra Singh-- Serial No.8
v. K.S. Tiwari Serial - No.9
vi. Md. Aslam Serial - No.10
vii. Subhash Gupta - Serial No.11
ix. Manmohan Rai - Serial No.15
x. Paras Nath Sharma - Serial No.17
xi. Jai Prakash Soni - Serial No.18
xiii. Satyanarayan Verma - Serial No.20
xiv. Balwan Singh - Serial No.22
xv. Raikumar - Serial No.24
xvi. K.P. Verma - Serial No.26xvii. Rambabu - Serial No.27
xviii. Rajendra Verma - Serial No.28
xix. Ramesh Kumar - Serial No.29
xx. Deepak Kumar - Serial No.31
xxi. Narendra Kumar - Serial No.32
Electrician Trade :
i. Ram Manohar Tiwari - Serial No.1
ii. Hariram - Serial No.2
iii. Peter Lartius - Serial No.3
iv. Akhilesh Kumar Nayak - Serial No.4
v. Pramod Kumar Verma - Serial No.6
vi. Sunderlal - Serial No.7
vii. Ashok Kumar - Serial No.8
viii. Premnarayan Serial No.9
Wireman Trade:
i. Mahendra Khare - Serial No.2
ii. Rajdeep Sigh Parihar - Serial No.3
iii. Y.P. Pandey - Serial No.4
iv. Jageshwar Dayal - Serial No.5
v. Arvind Singh - Serial No.6
vi. Bhagwat Soni - Serial No.7
Draftsman Trade:
ii. Suresh Kumar - Serial No.2
iii. Nandkishore - Serial No.3
Machinist Trade:
i. Ravindra Kumar Chhonkar - Serial No.4
ii. Deen Dayal - Serial No.5
Turner Trade:
i. Ajay Kashinath - Serial No.6
Welder Trade :
i. Yogendra Singh - Serial No.8
ii. D.K. Gupta - Serial No.9
v. Firoz Khan - Serial No.13
vii. Ashok Kumar - Serial No.15
ix. Om Prakash - Serial No.17
x. Ram Narayan Rajpoot - Serial No.18 "
8. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that persons referred above are working in establishment of BHEL, Jhansi for last more than 30 years on different position as skilled workers and still they are not regularized and contrary advertisements were issued not only in the year 2009 but thereafter also. Recently similar advertisement was issued on 12/18, July, 2025.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently placed reliance firstly on an Adjudication dated 05.01.2005 by Labour Commissioner under Uttar Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 read with Uttar Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition Rules, 1975, whereby it was directed that 265 contract employees working with respondent BHEL being post of list produced in proceedings paid salary and other allowances at par to regular employees. Most petitioners were part of said list. For reference, relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter :-
"प्रश्नगत विवाद से सम्बन्धित समस्त तथ्यों पर भलीभांति विचार करने के पश्चात् मैं इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचा हूँ कि मे० बी०एच०ई०एल० झॉसी द्वारा अपने प्रतिष्ठान में विभिन्न ठेकेदारों के माध्यम से संविदा श्रमिकों का बड़े पैमाने पर ऐसे कार्यों में नियोजन किया जाता रहा है जिनमें अधिसूचना दिनांक 24.4.1990 द्वारा संविदा श्रमिकों के नियोजन को निषिद्ध किया गया है। यह तथ्य भी प्रमाणित हो चुका है कि संविदा श्रमिकों के कार्य सौंपने से लेकर कार्य का पर्यवेक्षण एवं उनका आंतरिक विभागीय स्थानान्तरण भी प्रतिष्ठान के अधिकारियों के आदेशों से ही किया जाता है और इन संविदा श्रमिकों के ऊपर प्रतिष्ठान के नियम एवं उप नियम लागू किये जाते रहे हैं। वर्तमान में प्रतिष्ठान द्वारा 441 संविदा श्रमिकों का नियोजन किया जा रहा हैं यूनियन द्वारा 218 संविदा श्रमिकों का तुलनात्मक कार्य विवरण प्रस्तुत किया गया। इर के अतिरिक्त कई संविदा श्रमिक अभियन्त्रण उद्योग हेतु अधिसूचना दिनांक-24-04-90 द्वारा प्रतिबन्धित प्रक्रियाओं में नियोजित पाये गये। इस संबंध में महत्वपूर्ण बिन्दु जो समकक्ष / सम्पन्न कार्य करने से संबंधित है का विनिश्चिय भी उप्लब्ध प्रमाणों एवं साक्ष्यों के आधार पर करते हुए मैं इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचा हूँ कि 20; संविदा श्रमिकों द्वारा वही कार्य किया जा रहा है जो प्रतिष्ठान के नियमित कर्मचारियों द्वारा किया जाता है। अनेक संविदा श्रमिकों के ऐसे प्रकरण भी पाये गये जाां वे स्वतंत्र रूप से अकेले ही सारे कार्य संचालित करते रहे हैं।
प्रस्तुत तथ्यों के आधार पर मेरे समक्ष ऐसा कोई कारण नहीं है कि जिसके आधार पर संविदाकारों के माध्यम से नियोजित संविदा श्रमिकों को उनके समकक्ष प्रकार या समान कार्य करने वाले स्थायी व नियमित कर्मचारियों को दिये जा रहे वेतन से कम दर पर भुगतान किया जाये।
अतएव समस्त तथ्यों पर पूर्ण रूप से विचार करने के पश्चात मैं आदेश पारित करता हूँ कि संलग्न सूची में उल्लिखित सभी 265 संविदा श्रमिक प्रतिष्ठान द्वारा सीधे नि गेजित अकुशल नियमति कर्मचारियों के बराबर वेतन एवं अन्य भत्ते पाने के हकदार हैं। इस आदेश के फलस्वरूप संबंधित संविदा श्रमिक वेतन एवं अन्य भत्ते उसी दर पर एव उसी समान प्राप्त करने के अधिकारी होगें जिस दर पर बी०एच०ई०एल० झांसी में निगेजित स्थायी अकुशल श्रेणी के नियमित कर्मचारियों को वेतन एवं अन्य भत्ते दिये जा रहे हैं।
ये आदेश तत्कालिक प्रभाव से लागू होंगे। आदेश की प्रति संबंधित पक्षों एवं उप श्रमायुक्त, झांसी को सूचनार्थ एवं प्रतिपालन हेतु प्रेषित की जाय।"
10. Secondly, learned counsel has referred a judgment passed by Supreme Court in case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others, (2001) 7 SCC 1 and repeatedly referred its relevant paragraph being nos. 125 and 126, which are reproduced hereinafter :-
"125.The upshot of the above discussion is outlined thus:
(1)(a) Before 28-1-1986, the determination of the question whether the Central Government or the State Government is the appropriate Government in relation to an establishment, will depend, in view of the definition of the expression "appropriate Government" as stood in the CLRA Act, on the answer to a further question, is the industry under consideration carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or does it pertain to any specified controlled industry, or the establishment of any railway, cantonment board, major port, mine or oilfield or the establishment of banking or insurance company? If the answer is in the affirmative, the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment the Government of the State in which the establishment was situated, would be the appropriate Government
(b) After the said date in view of the new definition of that expression, the answer to the question referred to above, has to be found in clause (a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act; if (i) the Central Government company/undertaking concerned or any undertaking concerned is included therein eo nomine, or (ii) any industry is carried on (a) by or under the authority of the Central Government, or (b) by a railway company; or (c) by a specified controlled industry, then the Central Government will be the appropriate Government; otherwise in relation to any other establishment, the Government of the State in which that other establishment is situated, will be the appropriate Government.
(2)(a) A notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment has to be issued by the appropriate Government:
(1) after consulting with the Central Advisory Board or the State Advisory Board, as the case may be, and
(2) having regard to
(i) conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in the establishment in question, and
(ii) other relevant factors including those mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 10
(b) Inasmuch as the impugned notification issued by the Central Government on 9-12-1976 does not satisfy the aforesaid requirements of Section 10, it is quashed but we do so prospectively i.e. from the date of this judgment and subject to the clarification that on the basis of this judgment no order passed or no action taken giving effect to the said notification on or before the date of this judgment, shall be called in question in any tribunal or court including a High Court if it has otherwise attained finality and/or it has been implemented.
(3) Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment concerned.
(4) We overrule the judgment of this Court in Air India case [(1997) 9 SCC 377 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1344] prospectively and declare that any direction issued by any industrial adjudicator/any court including the High Court, for absorption of contract labour following the judgment in Air India case [(1997) 9 SCC 377 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1344] shall hold good and that the same shall not be set aside, altered or modified on the basis of this judgment in cases where such a direction has been given effect to and it has become final.
(5) On issuance of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. If the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so-called contract labour will have to be treated as employees of the principal employer who shall be directed to regularise the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned subject to the conditions as may be specified by it for that purpose in the light of para 6 hereunder.
(6) If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act in respect of the establishment concerned has been issued by the appropriate Government, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process, operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen, he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour, if otherwise found suitable and, if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately, taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualifications other than technical qualifications.
126. We have used the expression "industrial adjudicator" by design as determination of the questions aforementioned requires enquiry into disputed questions of facts which cannot conveniently be made by High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, in such cases the appropriate authority to go into those issues will be the Industrial Tribunal/Court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review."
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that all the conditions prescribed in Steel Authority of India (supra) are completely applicable on petitioners' case and they are entitled for consideration for absorption and regularization. The contract is a camouflage and there is employee-employer relationship between petitioners- worker and respondent-BHEL. Employment under GLRA was published by a notification dated 24.10.1990.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent (Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited) refers following paragraphs of supplementary counter affidavit :-
"5. That it is categorically submitted that no employer-employee relationship exists between BHEL and the Petitioners. In Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr. v. Air India Ltd. & Ors., (2014) 9 SCC 407, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after exhaustively considering the legal aspect, was pleased to hold that the existence of employer-employee relationship must be established on facts and cannot be presumed merely by place of work or indirect association. The relevant part of the judgment read as follows:
This extract is taken from Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd., (2014) 9 SCC 407: (2014) 2 SCC (L&S) 804: 2014 SCC OnLine SC 638 at page 437
"65. Thus, it can be concluded that the relevant factors to be taken into consideration to establish an employer-employee relationship would include, inter alia:
(1) who appoints the workers;
(ii) who pays the salary/remuneration;
(iii) who has the authority to dismiss;
(iv) who can take disciplinary action;
(v) whether there is continuity of service; and
(vi) extent of control and supervision i.e. whether there exists complete control and supervision.
6. That it is further submitted that the respondent establishment has not engaged any person as a contract employee and BHEL, Jhansi, has been awarding fixed-period job contracts for non-core and ancillary activities, such as maintenance, housekeeping, and other support services, through a lawful and transparent contracting process, strictly in compliance with the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 ("CLRA Act") and the rules framed thereunder. The engagement of workforce under such contracts is done by the Contractor in accordance with the terms and duration of the contract. The contractor is solely responsible for the appointment, supervision, control, and payment of wages to its workmen. BHEL, as the Principal Employer, ensures statutory compliance as mandated under the CLRA Act and other applicable laws.
7. That it is a stated that for the purposes of selecting the contractor Bidding is invited by the respondent corporation, and pursuant to the same after comparing the bids received, work contract is awarded to the successful bidder. Thereafter, the successful bidder, who is also registered with the Ministry of Labour, is given the certificate by the principal employer, pursuant to which he obtains the Labour Licence. In the instant case, the entire process was followed.
11. That it is further stated that the control and supervision was also of the contractor as it was used to decide is to be working in the establishment. Furthermore deliberating on the issue of "control and supervision" in the matter relating to another unit of BHEL, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
This extract is taken from BHEL v. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola, (2019) 13 SCC 82: (2020) 1 SCC (L&S) 399: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 382 at page 92
"22. The expression "control and supervision" were further explained with reference to an earlier judgment of this Court as follows: (Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills case [Bengal Nagpur Cotton Mills v. Bharat Lal, (2011) 1 SCC 635: (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 16], SCC pp. 638-39, para 12)
"12. The expression "control and supervision" in the context of contract labour was explained by this Court in International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers' Union [International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers' Union, (2009) 13 SCC 374: (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 257] thus: (SCC p. 388, paras 38-39)
'38.... if the contract is for supply of labour, necessarily, the labour supplied by the contractor will work under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer but that would not make the worker a direct employee of the principal employer, if the salary is paid by a contractor, if the right to regulate the employment is with the contractor, and the ultimate supervision and control lies with the contractor.
39. The principal employer only controls and directs the work to be done by a contract labour, when such labour is assigned/allotted/sent to him. But it is the contractor as employer, who chooses whether the worker is to be assigned/allotted to the principal employer or used otherwise. In short, worker being the employee of the contractor, the where the employee will work and how long he will work and subject to What conditions. Only when the contractor assigns/sends the worker to work under the principal employer, the worker works under the supervision and control of the principal employer but that is secondary control. The primary control is with the contractor."
13. That the other issue raised by the petitioner is the notification issued by the State Govt. dated 24/04/1990, to argue that the employment under the CLRA was prohibited in the unit. The said argument is flawed in itself, as the applicability of the notification on the respondent establishment, has been categorically denied by the respondent; however, the said argument, even if accepted on the face of it, will not be of any consequence or aid to the petitioner, as the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the instant writ petition cannot be granted, even if it is assumed (though the same is neither admitted nor accepted), that the notification was applicable. The Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in the case of SAIL v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1, was pleased to hold as follows:
This extract is taken from SAIL v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1: 2001 SCC (L&S) 1121: 2001 SCC OnLine SC 1027 at page 42
68. We have extracted above Section 10 of the CLRA Act which empowers the appropriate Government to prohibit employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment, lays down the procedure and specifies the relevant factors which shall be taken into consideration for issuing notification under sub-section (1) of Section 10. It sa common ground that the consequence of prohibition notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, prohibiting employment of contract labour, is neither spelt out in Section 10 nor indicated anywhere in the Act. In our view, the following consequences follow on issuing a notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act:
(1) contract labour working in the establishment concerned at the time of issue of notification will cease to function;
(2) the contract of principal employer with the contractor in regard to the contract labour comes to an end;
(3) no contract labour can be employed by the principal employer in any process, operation or other work in the establishment to which the notification relates at any time thereafter;
(4) the contract labour is not rendered unemployed as is generally assumed but continues in the employment of the contractor as the notification does not sever the relationship of master and servant between the contractor and the contract labour;
(5) the contractor can utilise the services of the contract labour in any other establishment in respect of which no notification under Section 10(1) has been issued where all the benefits under the CLRA Act which were being enjoyed by it, will be available;
(6) if a contractor intends to retrench his contract labour, he can do so only in conformity with the provisions of the ID Act.
The point now under consideration is: whether automatic absorption of contract labour working in an establishment, is implied in Section 10 of the CLRA Act and follows as a consequence on issuance of the prohibition notification thereunder. We shall revert to this aspect shortly.
That on the issue of automatic absorption on issuance of notification, the Hon'ble Supreme Court concluded as follows:
This extract is taken from SAIL v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1: 2001 SCC (L&S) 1121: 2001 SCC OnLine SC 1027 at page 49
"89. In the light of the above discussion we are unable to perceive in Section 10 any implicit requirement of automatic absorption of contract labour by the principal employer in the establishment concerned on issuance of notification by the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) prohibiting employment of contract labour in a given establishment.
95. There is nothing in that judgment to conclude that on abolition of the contract labour system under Section 10(1), automatic absorption of contract labour in the establishment of the principal employer in which they were working at that time, would follow.
125. (3) Neither Section 10 of the CLRA Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by the appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in any establishment. Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment concerned.
15. That the other ground raised by the petitioner is that the contract entered by the respondent establishment with the contractor is a sham and camouflage. It is submitted with emphasis that The allegation that the contractual arrangement is a sham or camouflage is wholly baseless and contrary to record. The Contractors engaged by BHEL obtain valid labour licences from the competent authority under the CLRA Act, submit copies of such licences to BHEL, and maintain independent muster rolls. attendance, and wage registers. Furthermore, as has been stated herein above, the payments, disciplinary action, supply of manpower, every aspect of contractual employment is controlled and regulated by the contractor, as such mere for averment of the arrangement being sham and camouflage, is only responsible and defamatory. Absolutely no document or reasoning has been brought by the petitioner for making such bald and grossly irresponsible accusations against BHEL which is a Maharatna of the Indian Govt.
19. That the petitioners are employed by an independent Contractor Society, which is a duly incorporated and registered legal entity under the applicable laws. The said Society undertakes service contracts from BHEL for non-core activities such as maintenance, housekeeping, and other ancillary support services. The entire supervision, deployment, and administrative control over its workforce, including the Petitioners, is exercised solely by the Contractor Society. BHEL neither engages the Petitioners directly nor exercises any control or supervision over their day-to-day functioning, working conditions, or performance.
20. That BHEL's only involvement, as a Principal Employer, is to ensure compliance with statutory obligations, including timely payment of wages, workplace safety, and adherence to applicable labour laws. Bills for work executed are raised by the Contractor and paid by BHEL in accordance with contractual terms. At no stage is there any privity of contract or supervisory control exercised by BHEL over the Petitioners."
13. Heard counsel for parties and perused the record.
14. Effect of an earlier Adjudication by Labour Commissioner :-
15. The Labour Commissioner has adjudicated only an issue that contract employees of the BHEL, Jhansi were entitled to same pay and allowances as given to regular appointees of the BHEL, Jhansi. Issue of regularisation before any new recruitment was neither an issue nor decided. Therefore any findings of adjudication would have no bearing on present case. Though it was the admitted case of petitioners therein that they were appointed through different Contractors.
16. Whether a issue that contract with Contractors by the BHEL is sham could be decided by High Court:
17. It is not much under dispute that in order to decided the said issue, evidence is required to be produced. Terms of contract and manner of working is to tested by statements and documents, therefore, to decide it writ jurisdiction is not the correct forum. The appropriate authority is the Industrial Tribunal. The Steel Authority of India (supra) has also held the same in it's para 126 and for reference the same is again referred herein after :-
"126. We have used the expression "industrial adjudicator" by design as determination of the questions aforementioned requires enquiry into disputed questions of facts which cannot conveniently be made by High Courts in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, in such cases the appropriate authority to go into those issues will be the Industrial Tribunal/Court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review."
18. In view of above referred discussion, the issue that whether the contract is sham or not cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Writ Jurisdiction.
19. Effect of BHEL vs Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola (supra) :-
20. In similar circumstances a claim of contract workers of BHEL, Haridwar for regularisation was rejected by Supreme Court after taking note of SAIL (supra) as well CLRA also. Expression 'control and supervision' was also considered and adjudication by Labour Court and a judgment passed by the High Court for regularisation were set aside by returning a specific finding that- "There is nothing on facts to show that the contract labour that is engaged, even de hors a prohibition notification, is in the facts of this case 'sham".
21. On basis of above discussion there is no ground to grant relief as prayed, therefore present writ petition is dismissed and interim order is accordingly, vacated.
Order Date :- 19.08.2025
P. Pandey
