Gujarat High Court
Arvind Vithalbhai Desai vs Rashtriya Mazdoor Union on 2 July, 2021
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi
C/SCA/7237/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7237 of 2021
==========================================================
ARVIND VITHALBHAI DESAI
Versus
RASHTRIYA MAZDOOR UNION
==========================================================
Appearance:
IG JOSHI(8726) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
Date : 02/07/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, these 16 petitioners, who are members of the Rashtriya
Majdoor Union challenge the judgment and award passed by
the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No.3, Vadodara
dated 22.05.2017, whereby it is directed that the contesting
respondent nos.2 and 3 herein jointly and severally
responsible to pay financial allowances, in proportionate
percentage of salary paid to permanent employee of
respondent no.2 to the salary paid to the present workmen.
2. Mr. Ishan Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioners
submitted that reasons assigned by the Industrial Tribunal
and finding recorded that at present petitioners are not
working with respondent no.2 herein i.e. principal employer,
that finding is incorrect. According to the case of the
petitioners, though they were employed through contractor-
C/SCA/7237/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2021
respondent no.3, they are still working with respondent no.2
through different contractor. It is further submitted that the
Labour Court has lost sight of the fact that it is in breach of
provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and therefore, the
petitioners have to be treated as employees of the principal
employer being respondent no.2 herein.
3. It is further submitted, relying on application vide Exh.12,
when the petitioners prayed for production of documents as
narrated in it, which is at page no.66 of this compilation,
which includes copy of contract license and contract
agreement between first party-Company and the so called
contractor from the year 2001 to 2010, attendance register,
payment register and bonus register, identity-card register
and gate-pass register etc. The Labour Court after hearing the
parties passed the order below Exh.12 dated 10.12.2012 partly
allowing the same and directing respondent nos.2 and 3
herein to provide copy of contract executed by them with
respondent no.3 herein, as also copy of license under 'the Act'
to be supplied by the respondent no.3 herein. Though other
documents are also ordered to be supplied, there is no
grievance raised at all. According to Mr. Joshi, to prove the
case of the petitioners, contract executed by the respondent
no.2- Company-principal employer with present contractor
through whom the petitioners claimed to be working is not
produced by them and therefore, according to his submission,
an adverse inference is required to be drawn. He has further
C/SCA/7237/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2021
submitted that if those contracts would have been produced,
the petitioners would have been treated as permanent
employees of the principal employer being respondent no.2-
herein and they would have been entitled for all the benefits
which permanent employees of respondent no.2 are getting,
and that part of relief which is not granted by the Tribunal,
this petition is preferred.
4. Having heard Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioners
and going through the impugned judgment and award, it is
clear that the petitioners, though claimed to be working with
respondent no.2-principal employer as on the date of
deposition before the Tribunal, have admitted in cross-
examination that witness does not have any proof thereof to
show that they are working with the principal employer
through different contractors. So far as production of
document as requested vide Exh. 12 is concerned, an order
passed by the Tribunal thereon restricting production and
supply of documents as mentioned in order passed below
Exh.12, which does not contain any document as asserted to
be contract with other contractors by the principal employer.
The said order passed below Exh.12 was not carried further
by the petitioners and it had become final and therefore, there
is no question of raising any adverse inference against
respondent nos.2 or 3 for non-production of other contracts in
support of the assertion of the petitioners before the Industrial
Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that the petitioners are
entitled for additional financial allowances and other
C/SCA/7237/2021 ORDER DATED: 02/07/2021
allowances in percentage proportion to their salary with the
salary of the permanent employees of the principal employer.
The said finding and conclusion is reached on appreciation of
the evidence, oral as well as documentary, produced before it,
and therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the said finding
and conclusion recorded by the Tribunal.
5. Learned advocate for the petitioner though attempted but has
failed to show how and in what manner and for what other
benefits, the petitioners are entitled and therefore, this petition
challenging the impugned judgment and award, which is in
their favour and for the relief which has not been granted was
beyond the terms of Reference, and even if it is within the
terms of Reference, on appreciation of evidence, they are held
to be not entitled for it and therefore, this petition filed under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the
impugned judgment and award requires no interference of
this Court and therefore, it is rejected.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J)
TUVAR
