Delhi High Court
Deepmala vs Employees State Insurance ... on 10 February, 2021
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.02.2021
19:21:05
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 14th December, 2020
Date of decision: 10th February, 2021
+ W.P.(C) 3956/2020 & CM APPLs. 14200/2020, 14201/2020
NAVEEN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ritu Jain & Mr. M. Singh,
Advocates (M-9313988114).
versus
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yakesh Anand, Advocate for R-
1&2 (M-9810004397).
Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Advocate for R-3
(M-9313347911).
Mr. Tarun Khanna, Advocate for R-4.
WITH
+ W.P.(C) 4744/2020 & CM APPLs. 17115/2020, 17116/2020
DEEPMALA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ritu Jain & Mr. M. Singh,
Advocates.
versus
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION
& ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Yakesh Anand, Advocate for R-
1&2.
Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Advocate for R-3
(M-9313347911).
Mr. Tarun Khanna, Advocate for R-4.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 5545/2020 & CM APPL. 19987/2020, 19988/2020
DHARMENDAR KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ritu Jain & Mr. M. Singh,
Advocates.
versus
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATHIBA M SINGH W.P.(C) 3956/2020, 4744/2020 & 5545/2020 Page 1 of 18
Signing Date:10.02.2021 17:16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.02.2021
19:21:05
EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE
CORPORATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yakesh Anand, Advocate for R-
1&2.
Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Advocate for R-3.
Mr. Tarun Khanna, Advocate for R-4.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. This judgment has been pronounced through video conferencing.
2. The present writ petitions have been filed by various
Petitioners/Workmen (hereinafter referred as "Workmen"), who were
working in the Employees' State Insurance Hospital, Basai Darapur, Delhi-
110015 (hereinafter referred as "ESI Hospital") run by Employees' State
Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred as "the Corporation"). These
three writ petitions cover a total of 86 Workmen, who worked as Safai
Karamcharis at the ESI Hospital. They were engaged by Uttar Pradesh
Rajkiya Nirman Nigam (hereinafter referred as "UPRNN") through a sub-
contractor who is Respondent No.3, M/S. New S. S. Enterprises
(hereinafter, "old Contractor").
3. The case of the Workmen, is that the contract of maintenance of ESI
Hospital was awarded by Respondent Nos.1 & 2, to the old Contractor,
under the supervision of UPRNN, since August 2019. The Workmen were
told on 30th May 2020 that the contract of Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 with the
old Contractor had come to an end. Respondent No.4, i.e. M/S. S. N.
Enterprises (hereinafter, "new Contractor"), was supposed to replace
Respondent No. 3 as the new contractor, with effect from 1st June 2020.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.02.2021 17:16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.02.2021
19:21:05
4. The Workmen, thereafter, approached the supervisor of the new
Contractor, requesting to continue services in the ESI Hospital. The
allegation of the Workmen is that the new Contractor told them that if they
wish to continue their services in the ESI Hospital, with the new Contractor,
they would have to pay a sum of Rs.13,000/- each, which was their monthly
salary, to the supervisor of the new Contractor. According to the Workmen,
since they did not accede to the these demands, they have been disengaged
from their services in the ESI Hospital.
Submissions
Submissions of the Petitioners/Workmen
5. Ms. Ritu Jain, ld. counsel appearing for the Workmen, submits that
the legal position on the questions that have arisen in these writ petitions is
well settled. She submits that no contractual employee can be replaced by
another contractual employee, in accordance with the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and ors. v. Piara Singh
[(1992) 4 SCC 118], which has also been considered by a ld. Single Judge of
this court in Anil Lamba v. GNCTD [238 (2017) DLT 760]. She further
submits that until and unless there is a specific allegation of misconduct
against any particular Workman, they cannot be removed from service and
an en masse sacking of all the contractual Workmen is completely illegal.
She also relies upon the recent order of this court in Sh. Hemant Kumar and
Ors. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and Ors. (W.P.(C)
6891/2019), where a ld. Single Judge of this court has relied upon Piara
Singh (supra) and Anil Lamba (supra) to hold that the old Workmen need
to be absorbed by the new Contractor. Ms. Jain, ld. counsel submits that this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.02.2021 17:16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.02.2021
19:21:05
recent consideration by the Court, vide the abovementioned order, itself
settles the matter in the favour of the Workmen, and there is no reason as to
why this order should not be followed.
6. Ms. Jain then compares the tender quoted last year, which was for 153
workers, with the one floated this year, and submits that for 122 workers in
this year's tender, a higher amount of money is being paid. She further
submits that almost 100 contractual Workmen, who were working in the
hospital, have been disengaged, which is affecting more than 500 lives as
they are not earning any salary since the last 4 to 5 months.
7. On the question of misconduct and nuisance, it is submitted by Ms.
Jain, ld. counsel, that there are no allegations, except bold and general ones
in respect to misconduct. Even the photographs filed by the Respondents
only show that the Workmen are extremely frustrated and had merely gone
to the new Contractor's office to seek their identity cards. Ms. Jain further
submits that, as the old Contractor has not reported a single incident of
misconduct by any of the Workmen, the allegation of misconduct by the new
Contractor remains completely baseless. She asserts that by virtue of the old
Contractor having no grievance with respect to any misbehaviour or
misconduct by the Workmen, the new Contractor cannot argue for the same.
8. Ms. Jain, ld. counsel, finally relies upon an audio recording by which
it is alleged that a demand for Rs.13,000/- as monthly compensation, was
made by the new Contractor, to continue to engage the Workmen as
contractual employees. She submits this demand to be completely illegal
and unlawful, and asserts that the conduct of the new Contractor itself shows
that their intention is completely dishonest. Lastly, she submits that
considering the financial status of the Workmen and also following the ratio
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.02.2021 17:16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.02.2021
19:21:05
of the Supreme Court in Piara Singh (supra), the Workmen deserve to be
employed by the new Contractor i.e., Respondent No. 4.
Submissions of the Respondents
9. At the outset, Mr. Rajesh Pathak, appearing for the old Contractor,
Respondent No. 3, submits that there is no allegation of misconduct against
any of the Workmen. He thus prays for deletion of Respondent No.3 from
this writ petition.
10. Mr. Yakesh Anand, ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation
and the ESI Hospital, firstly relies upon the judgment of the learned Single
Judge of this court in PTI Employees v. Press Trust of India and Anr.
(2020) SCC Online Del 1216, decided on 18th September, 2020, to argue
that the usual remedy that has to be availed of by any Workman, in such
circumstances, would be the statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (hereinafter, "the ID Act"). He submits that the writ remedy
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is only to be exercised in
exceptional circumstances, and ordinarily the workmen ought to be directed
to approach the appropriate forum provided statutorily under the ID Act. He
further places reliance on the same judgment to submit that the entire law on
this subject has been recently crystallized by a ld. Single Judge of this Court,
and that unless and until exceptional circumstances exist, the Court ought
not to entertain such writ petitions.
11. On merits, Mr. Anand, ld. counsel, submits that the judgment in Piara
Singh (supra) is not good law, as is evident from subsequent decisions of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He submits that the judgment of the
Constitution bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka and ors. v. Umadevi
and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1, has considered the judgment in Piara Singh
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.02.2021 17:16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.02.2021
19:21:05
(supra) and has clarified the same to not be good law. Ld. counsel has
further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gangadhar Pillai
v. Siemens Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 533 [Para 31], and the recent judgment of the
Supreme Court in ONGC v. Krishan Gopal and ors. (2020) SCC Online SC
150, to submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has unequivocally held the
judgment in Uma Devi (supra) to have overruled the judgment in Piara
Singh (supra). In view of this, ld. counsel submits that the decisions in
Hemant Kumar (supra) and Anil Lamba (supra) are contrary to law and
per incuriam due to their reliance on Piara Singh (supra).
12. Mr. Anand, ld. counsel, also relies upon the judgment in Rajasthan
State Roadways Transport Corporation v. Paramjeet Singh (2019) 6 SCC
250, to submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear that once
the appointment is contractual, Workmen can be dispensed at any stage and
no indulgence can be sought by the Workmen to remain in service. He has
further relied upon the following judgments to canvass the said proposition:
• Official Liquidator v. Dayanand & Ors (2008) 10 SCC 1
• Rajiv Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. [CWP No. 13348/
2018, decided on 10th December, 2018]
• Resmi R.S. & Ors. v. Government of India 2019 [SCC OnLine Ker
2649]
• Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Mahendra Prasad Jakhmola &
Ors. [(2019) 13 SCC 82].
13. In sum and substance, Mr. Anand, ld. counsel for the ESI Hospital and
the Corporation, submits that the Workmen being contractual employees,
this writ petition does not deserve to be entertained. He submits that when
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.02.2021 17:16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.02.2021
19:21:05
there are contractual employees who are not selected through the regular
process, the expectation that they would be continued in service and also be
regularized would be contrary to the very policy of appointment of
contractual employees. Thus he prays for the writ petitions to be dismissed.
14. Mr. Khanna, ld. counsel appearing for the new Contractor/
Respondent No. 4, submits on maintainability, that the Workmen ought to be
relegated to the alternate remedy available under the ID Act. He submits that
the Workmen had already filed a complaint before the Labour Court,
however, they withdrew the same and have filed the present writ petitions. In
view of this, he submits that the present writ petition must not be liable to be
entertained, and the Workmen be directed to approach the Labour Court on
their grievances.
15. On merits, Mr. Khanna, ld. counsel submits that all the judgments
cited by the Petitioners' relate to contractual employees who are directly
engaged by the employer themselves. However, in the present cases, the
Workmen are engaged through a contractor, and not by the principal
employer at all. Thus, he submits that these cases are completely distinct
from Piara Singh (supra) and the line of cases that have been cited by the
Petitioners. Ld. Counsel relies upon Haldia Refinery Canteen's Employees
Union v. Indian Oil Corporation (2005) 5 SCC 51, to argue that this case
would be covered by the facts of Haldia (supra) wherein the Supreme Court
has clearly held that the contractual employees do not become employees of
the Management.
16. Mr. Khanna, ld. counsel submits that the Workmen cannot claim any
"right" to be absorbed. Inasmuch as to the extent possible, the Respondent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.02.2021 17:16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.02.2021
19:21:05
No.4 has already engaged 109 employees of the earlier contractor. He
submits that the allegation that Rs.13,000/- was being charged for the same,
is incorrect and without any basis at all. He further submits that the present
Petitioners/Workmen have engaged in manhandling other staff, which can be
shown before this Court through a video recording.
Rejoinder submissions of the Petitioners/Workmen
17. Ms. Jain, ld. counsel for the Workmen, in rejoinder, submits that
insofar as maintainability of these writ petitions is concerned, these cases fall
within the "exceptional circumstances" mentioned in the PTI Employees
(supra) judgment, as mass termination has taken place. She submits that all
the Workmen were multi-tasking personnel, working at the ESI Hospital
since the last 9-11 years, and have served the Hospital even during the
pandemic. In lieu of this, they do not deserve to be disengaged from their
services, merely because a new contractor is appointed by the ESI Hospital.
These are all exceptional circumstances, and hence, in her submission, these
writ petitions shall be maintainable.
18. Ms. Jain, ld. counsel, further submits that the judgment in Uma Devi
(supra) only related to regularization, and in fact the ratio of Piara Singh
(supra), in relation to the replacement of one contractual employee with
another contractual employee, is valid even today and has not been reversed
or differed with by the Supreme Court. She submits that the judgment in
Anil Lamba (supra), has distinguished the judgments in Piara Singh
(supra) and Uma Devi (supra) and has held that the Uma Devi (supra) is
only related to regularization of workmen, which is not the issue at hand. In
the said case, insofar as the replacement of contractual employees with other
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.02.2021 17:16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.02.2021
19:21:05
contractual employees is concerned, the ld. Single Judge had followed the
judgment in Piara Singh (supra).
19. She submits that as per the terms of the contract awarded to the new
Contractor, compliance with labour laws is the responsibility of the new
Contractor and the same is clearly visible from the perusal of the award
dated 28th May 2020.
20. Ld. counsel submits that a perusal of the order dated 7th July, 2020 (at
paragraph 4) clearly shows that it is the ESI hospital which gives
instructions to the contractor as to how much manpower is to be employed.
She further submits that for 153 workers, Rs.30 lakhs per month was being
paid whereas for 122 workers Rs.31 lakhs is now being paid. This, itself
shows that the removal of the earlier contractor and the non-engagement of
the present Petitioners is malafide in nature. Ms. Jain, ld. counsel finally,
vehemently relying upon Hemant Kumar (supra), to argue that under
identical circumstances, some Workmen have been given benefit, by this
court.
Analysis and Findings
21. From a perusal of the pleadings and submissions, the following two
issues have been raised for determination:
1) Whether the present writ petition is maintainable, or whether
the Workmen ought to be relegated to avail of the alternate remedy
available under the ID Act?
2) Whether contractual workmen being replaced, due to change in
the Contractor with new contractual workmen is illegal and contrary to
law?
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.02.2021 17:16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.02.2021
19:21:05
22. With regards to the question of maintainability of the present writ
petitions, the legal position is well settled. The jurisdiction of this court,
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not ousted, even though
there may be an alternative remedy which is available. However, the same is
to be exercised sparingly. The general rule is to relegate the parties to avail
of the alternate remedy in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [(1997) 3 SCC 261],
followed by this court recently in Prabhat Ranjan Deo v. UPSC [WP(C)
3334/2019, decided on 13th July, 2020, and PTI Employees (supra).
23. In Prabhat Ranjan Deo (supra) this court has held that:
"13. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in
L. Chandra Kumar (supra) laid down that the
Tribunals created pursuant to Article 323-A or
under Article 323-B of the Constitution of India are
competent to hear matters entrusted to them and will
continue to act as only Courts of 'first instance' in
respect of the areas of law for which they have been
constituted. Supreme Court categorically observed that
it will not be open for litigants to directly approach the
High Court even in cases where there is a challenge to
the vires of statutory Legislation, by overlooking the
jurisdiction of the concerned Tribunal, with a cautious
caveat that the Tribunal shall not entertain a challenge
regarding the vires of the Parent Statute, following the
settled principle that a Tribunal, which is a creature of
an Act, cannot declare that very Act to be
unconstitutional. In the latter case alone, Supreme
Court observed, that the High Court concerned may be
approached directly. This observation of the Supreme
Court made in para 93 of the judgement was reiterated
in the penultimate paragraph 99, holding that the
Tribunals will continue to act as Courts of 'first
instance' and will have the competence and jurisdiction
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.02.2021 17:16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.02.2021
19:21:05
to test the constitutional validity of Statutory provisions
and Rules.
14. Insofar as the jurisdiction of the High Courts is
concerned, Supreme Court further observed that the
jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under
Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, is a part
of the inviolable basic structure of the Constitution.
While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other Courts
and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in
discharging the powers conferred on the High Courts
and the Supreme Court. It was thereafter held that
while the Tribunals would function as Courts of 'first
instance', all decisions of these Tribunals will be
subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High
Court within whose jurisdiction the concerned
Tribunal falls. xxx"
The ID Act, itself creates remedies of first instance in the form of the Labour
Courts and the Central Government Industrial Tribunal under Article 323-B
of the Constitution. Therefore, following the dicta in L. Chandra Kumar
(supra) and Prabhat Ranjan Deo (supra) the labour courts shall be the only
courts of "first instance" with respect to Industrial Disputes within the ID
Act, unless certain exceptional situations warrant the exercise of the Writ
jurisdiction of this court.
24. Recently a learned Single Judge of this Court in PTI Employees
(supra) has clearly held that the ID Act, is a complete code in itself and
provides for remedies in all cases involving industrial disputes. It is only in
exceptional circumstances that the writ jurisdiction of this court can be
exercised. Further the learned Single Judge has opined that if there are any
disputed questions of fact in the industrial dispute, a writ petition ought not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.02.2021 17:16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.02.2021
19:21:05
be entertained. It is only if most of the facts in a case are admitted that a writ
petition should be entertained. The relevant extracts from the said decision
are as under:
"xxx
30. Industrial Disputes Act is a complete Code in itself
which provides the remedies to the employees in
respect of all industrial disputes. All industrial
disputes, in the first instance, have to be adjudicated by
the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes
Act and the awards of the Industrial Tribunal are
amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. This is
the legislative policy and intendment underlying
the Industrial Disputes Act.
31. The law is well settled by the Supreme Court that a
writ petition should not be entertained in respect of
industrial disputes for which a statutory remedy is
available under the Industrial Disputes Act unless
'Exceptional circumstances' are made out. The
Supreme Court further held that if the writ involves
disputed questions of fact, the writ petition should not
be entertained. The writ jurisdiction is a discretionary
jurisdiction and the discretion should not ordinarily be
exercised, if there is an alternative remedy available to
the petitioner.
.....
34. The above principles are summarized as under:
I. If the writ petition discloses 'Exceptional
circumstances' and does not involve disputed
questions of fact, the writ petition in respect of an
industrial dispute may be entertained.
II. If the writ petition discloses 'Exceptional
circumstances' but the facts are disputed, the writ
petition should not be entertained and the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.02.2021 17:16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.02.2021
19:21:05
petitioner has to invoke the statutory remedies
available as per law.
III. If the writ petition does not disclose
'Exceptional circumstances', the writ petition
should not be entertained irrespective of whether
the facts are disputed or not.
IV. Writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction
and the discretion is ordinarily not exercised, if an
alternative remedy is available to the petitioner.
The powers conferred under Article 226 of the
Court are very wide but these are extraordinary
remedies subject to self-imposed restrictions.
.....
40. The retrenched employees have a statutory remedy
to raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial
Disputes Act. The petitioners have based their claims
on the alleged violation of the provisions of
the Industrial Disputes Act. There are no exceptional
circumstances for exercise of the writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution in these writ
petitions.
....
41. This case is squarely covered by the principles laid
down by the Supreme Court in U.P. State Bridge
Corporation Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam
Karamchari Sangh (supra) in which the High Court
allowed a writ petition of the Trade Union to challenge
the termination of a workman. The Supreme Court held
that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ
petition since the disputes related to the enforcement of
a right/obligation under the Industrial Disputes
Act and the specific remedy was provided under
the Industrial Disputes Act. Relevant portion of the
judgment is reproduced hereunder:
"11. We are of the firm opinion that the High
Court erred in entertaining the writ petition of
the respondent Union at all. The dispute was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.02.2021 17:16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.02.2021
19:21:05
an industrial dispute both within the meaning
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as
U.P. IDA, 1947. The rights and obligations
sought to be enforced by the respondent
Union in the writ petition are those created by
the Industrial Disputes Act.
(Emphasis Supplied)
.....
47. According to the petitioners, this Court issued
notice in the writ petition after considering the
respondent's objection to the maintainability of the
writ petition and the detailed interim order was passed
in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that these
petitions cannot now be dismissed on the ground of
alternative remedy. This very objection was raised
before the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh
Samiti (supra) in which the Supreme Court held in
clear terms that a writ petition can be dismissed on the
ground of alternative remedy even after it has been
admitted and interim order has been passed. Relevant
portion of para 38 of the judgment is reproduced
hereunder:
"38. ...it cannot be laid down as a proposition
of law that once a petition is admitted, it could
never be dismissed on the ground of
alternative remedy. If such held contention is
upheld, even this court cannot order dismissal
of a writ petition which ought not be have
been entertained by the High Court
under article 226 of the constitution in view of
availability of alternative and equally
efficacious remedy to the aggrieved party
once the High Court has entertained a writ
petition albeit wrongly and granted the relief
to the petitioner."
(Emphasis Supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.02.2021 17:16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.02.2021
19:21:05
48. The petitioner's next contention is that the writ
jurisdiction should be exercised because all facts
averred by the petitioner are admitted. However, the
respondent has vehemently disputed all the averments
made by the petitioners in the writ petitions. Both these
writ petitions involve disputed questions of facts which
cannot be resolved by this Court in writ jurisdiction.
This Court is of the view that the affidavits and
documents filed by the parties are not sufficient to
decide the questions of fact without evidence.
.....
50. The Courts are required to maintain uniformity in
applying the law. The principles of uniformity and
predictability are very important principles of
jurisprudence. If this writ petition with such
complicated questions of fact and law is entertained
then on what ground a writ petition of simple
retrenchment or termination can be declined. Most of
the retrenchment cases are simpler than the present
case but the writ jurisdiction is not exercised as the
law is clear and well settled that the rights under
the Industrial Disputes Act have to be agitated before
the Industrial Tribunal.
xxx"
In PTI Employees (supra) this court was dealing with the retrenchment of
297 employees, and the court did not deem the same as an "exceptional
circumstance" to admit the Writ Petition, over and above the alternate
statutory remedy available within the ID Act.
25. In the present case, the Petitioners are 86 Workmen who were
engaged by the old Contractor. The old Contractor had entered into a
contract with the ESI Corporation, through the UPRNN. Its contract with the
Corporation came to an end. A tender was issued, and a new Contractor
stepped in for providing the personnel to the Corporation. The new
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.02.2021 17:16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.02.2021
19:21:05
Contractor has engaged several of the employees who were already working
under the old Contractor. However, the Workmen have not been absorbed by
the new Contractor, and there are several reasons that have been given by
both sides, with respect to the same.
26. Ms. Jain, ld counsel for the Workmen submits that mass termination
makes this situation an "exceptional circumstance" wherein this writ petition
ought to be admitted. However, following the rationale in PTI Employees
(supra), where there was a retrenchment of 297 employees and the Court yet
did not hold the same to constitute an "exceptional circumstance", this court
does not deem it fit to hold that the present case is an "exceptional
circumstance" where this writ petition ought to be maintainable, inspite of
the availability of an efficacious alternate remedy under the ID Act.
27. Further, the Workmen have argued that the new Contractor demanded
a sum of Rs.13,000/- from each workman for them to be absorbed, and they
rely on an audio recording to that effect, which has been disputed. The new
Contractor, on the other hand, alleges misconduct on the part of the
Workmen, and has also relied upon certain photographs and a video
recording to that effect, which has also been disputed. These two conflicting
stands of the parties, constitute disputed facts in the present cases and this
Court cannot venture into determining the accuracy of the same in writ
jurisdiction.
28. Thus, following the judgments in L. Chandra Kumar (supra), and the
recent judgments in Prabhat Ranjan Deo (supra) and PTI Employees
(supra) this Court holds that the Workmen ought to be relegated to avail of
the alternative remedy that is available, under the ID Act.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.02.2021 17:16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.02.2021
19:21:05
29. In fact, in the present cases, the Workmen had filed claims before the
Labour Court, however, they withdrew the same due to the pendency of the
present writ petition.
30. In view of the fact that the Workmen are now being relegated to the
statutory remedy i.e. the Labour Court, they are permitted to restore the
claim petitions filed by them earlier before the appropriate authorities, and
pursue the same in accordance with law.
31. Ld. counsels for the parties canvased very detailed submissions on
how the judgment of Piara Singh (supra) relied upon in Anil Lamba
(supra) and Hemant Kumar (supra) has been overruled by the judgment of
the Supreme Court in Uma Devi (supra). Ld. counsel for the Respondents
have also relied upon the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in BHEL
(supra), where the Supreme Court has laid down the broad guidelines as to
when an employer-employee relationship is established in the context of
contractual employees, as well as the recent judgment in ONGC v. Krishan
Gopal (supra) where the Supreme Court has held, in categorical terms, that
the judgment in Piara Singh stands overruled by the judgment in Uma Devi.
32. Since the writ petition is being rejected due to availability of an
alternate remedy, this Court does not consider it appropriate to go into the
merits of these contentions raised by the parties. The Labour Court ought to
decide the claims of the Workmen on merits. The allegation that the new
contractor has demanded huge sums of money for appointing workmen on
contract basis is quite a disturbing feature, if true. Such allegations are
becoming a common feature and are a disturbing trend in labour disputes.
The labour court and the appropriate authority are directed to enquire into
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.02.2021 17:16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:DINESH
SINGH NAYAL
Signing Date:10.02.2021
19:21:05
such allegations and take action in accordance with law if the allegations are
proved to be correct.
33. The Workmen, in the present case, were contractual employees, who
were engaged by the old Contractor. This Court does not see any
justification in their replacement, considering the fact that they were
working in the hospital for 10 to 12 years. Moreover, during the pandemic,
the justification to change the Contractor is also not considered to be
bonafide conduct on part of the Corporation. However, considering the fact
that new Contractor has already stepped in and various Workmen have
already been posted in the hospital, the said issue is not being gone into by
this Court. Needless to add, that if there is a need for further Workmen at the
hospital, the new Contractor would consider appointing the Petitioners, who
have considerable experience of working in the hospital.
34. The writ petitions and all pending applications are, accordingly,
disposed of in the above terms, giving liberty to the Petitioners to avail of
their remedies in accordance with law.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 10, 2021
dk/Ak
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signing Date:10.02.2021 17:16
