Case: U.P.Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Board  Vs. U.P.Vidyut Mazdoor Sangh

my opinion is that 28 contract labour in temporary plant through contractor M/s. Eastern Engineering Corporation and M/s. Kheroni Constructions Company should be paid the wages at the rate admissible to the workers/labours in permanent plant. This is my decision in respect of application......" 12. As a matter of fact, the present appellants specifically set out the details of works in two water filtration plants thus : "There are two water filtration plants in Anpara Project. One is permanent having the capacity of treating 3 million Gallon water per day (3 M.G.D) or 30 lacs gallon per day and the second is temporary having capacity of treating 3 Million Gallons per day i.e. 3 lacs gallons per day. From permanent treatment plant, water supply is given to the entire permanent colony. This plant is very important and permanent. Therefore, I.T.I. passed/trained operators are being appointed by the department to run it. The appointments are being made by the Selection Committee through selection procedure on the basis of eligibility and advertisement by the Board. Therefore, the operators and employees appointed on this plant are permanent employees of the department and they are fully responsible for the work done by them. The equipments installed at this plant are of permanent nature and it is being run 24 hours (day and night). There are 6 pumps at this plant and each has the capacity of 170 H.P. and consumes 9302.40 watts electricity. The chemicals are mixed at this plant mechanically and for its operation eligible and responsible employees are required. The salary of these employees comes in the payscale of permanent employees who have been appointed. There are 26 employees have been appointed and working in this plant. The other filtration plant is of temporary nature and is being operated till the next phase of the project is completed and after the completion of next phase it will be closed. From this plant water is supplied to the temporary colony and project area. It is being operated through contractor. The Department makes the payment to the contractor on the basis of itemwise as per the work executed and not labour wise. The contractor used to make payment to his employees on the basis of minimum wages declared by the Government from time to time and not less than that amount. The contractor get this plant operated by his 3 unskilled and 3 semi-skilled employees. The basic pay of the regularly operated appointed by the Board are water filtration plant is as follows : Operators--Basic Pay Rs. 1200 D.A.2572 Local compensatory Allowances 180. Interim Relief 340. Total 4292 per month. Labourers : Basic Pay Rs. 900 D.A. 1931 Local compensatory Allowance Rs. 120 Interim Relief Rs. 300 Total Rs. 3251 per month The contractors used to pay to his semi-skilled employees Rs. 1857.87 per month and to unskilled employees Rs. 1580.23 per month which are declared by Labour Department to the employees in temporary filtration plant. Its photocopy is enclosed. The above facts show that it will not be justiciable to compare the work and facilities of the employees working in permanent filtration plant with the employees working in Temporary Filtration Plant." 13. Despite such a specific case set up by the present appellants before the Labour Commissioner to show that the contract labour in filtration plant engaged through the contractors do not perform the same or similar kind of work as is done by the employees employed directly by the employer in main plant, the Labour Commissioner did not advert to these aspects at all. The Labour Commissioner ought to have adverted to the nature of duties of the staff in the two categories, degree of skill and dimensions of the job for reaching the conclusion that the work done by the contract labour in the second filtration plant is same or similar to the kind of work done by the employees employed by the principal employer directly in the main plant. There is no discussion at all by the Labour Commissioner as to how he arrived at the conclusion about similarity of work. The evidence let in by the parties and the material placed by them seem to have not at all been considered by the Labour Commissioner. 14. The order of Single Judge is no better. He has simply not considered any thing. Insofar as Division Bench is concerned, although, the judgment runs in nine foolscap typed pages but out of that, eight pages relate to maintainability of appeal. In one paragraph, on merits, the Division Bench said thus : "........,we are of the considered view that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not commend itself for interference on merits. The learned Single Judge has committed no illegality in maintaining the order passed by the Labour Commissioner holding that the workmen on whose behalf application under the proviso to rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the U.P. Rules was filed, though employed by the Contractor, were performing the same or similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the appellant and therefore, the wage rates and other conditions of service of the workmen of the contractor shall be the same as applicable to the workmen directly employed by the appellants on the same or similar kind of works." 15. We are afraid, the consideration of the question as to whether the workmen employed by the contractors in the second filtration plant perform the same or similar kind of work as the employees directly employed by the principal employer in the main plant by the Labour Commissioner as well as High Court is highly unsatisfactory. In a situation such as this, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the order dated October 24, 1998 passed by the Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh. The application made by the Union under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Rules, 1975 is restored to the file of Labour Commissioner, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]15. We are afraid, the consideration of the question as to whether the workmen employed by the contractors in the second filtration plant perform the same or similar kind of work as the employees directly employed by the principal employer in the main plant by the Labour Commissioner as well as High Court is highly unsatisfactory. In a situation such as this, we are constrained to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the order dated October 24, 1998 passed by the Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh. The application made by the Union under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Rules, 1975 is restored to the file of Labour Commissioner, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh for fresh consideration in accordance with law