N.T.P.C. & Ors vs Badri Singh Thakur & Ors

1. Challenge in these appeals and writ petition are to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. By a common order several Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of. The Letters Patent Appeals were filed by present respondents on the ground that they have been employed as Electricians since 1987 as workmen under Appellant No.1 i.e. National Thermal Power Corporation (in short the `Corporation') for maintenance of Korba Super Thermal Power Project colonies. Though the writ petitioners were not directly employed by the Corporation, but were employed through contractor. Prior to such engagement they were employed through other contractors. It was the stand in the writ petition that their work was supervised by competent officers of the Corporation and the materials for their job were supplied by the Corporation and they worked for the colonies owned and controlled by the Corporation and series of contracts have been entered into by the Corporation with the contractor. It was therefore their stand that they have to be treated as employees of the Corporation. It was stated that the Corporation wanted to avoid absorption of contract labour despite their perennial nature of work. With a view to frustrate mandate of this Court, they engaged them on job work basis and the whole endeavour was to defeat the absorption of the contract labours. It was claimed before the learned Single Judge that the M.P. Industrial Relation Act, 1960 (in short 2 `1960 Act') governs the conditions of the employment between the Corporation and the contract labour and they were entitled to the same wages as the workmen of the Corporation and there can be abolition of the contract labour on regular basis.

2. Returns were filed by the Corporation. Stand of the Corporation was that it is a registered establishment under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the `Act'). The contractor who was impleaded as respondent No.4 in the writ petitions was awarded the contract after inviting tenders. The contractor employed writ petitioners and there was no relationship of masters and servants between the Corporation and the writ petitioners. It was canvassed that the writ petitioners had initiated conciliation proceedings under the 1960 Act and once they have taken recourse to alternative remedy available to them under industrial law they cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court. The contractor who was impleaded as respondent No.4 supported the stand of the 3 Corporation and its functionaries. It was stated that it is a partnership firm and it had full control over the employees as the salaries were being paid by the firm. It was also stated that it had obtained a licence under Section 12 of the Act and was entitled to engage 75 workmen as per the said licence. It was pointed out that the writ petitioners were not permanent employees and their services last during the continuance of the contract and it had come to an end after the term of the contract had expired.

(d) whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number of whole-time workmen.

Explanation.-If a question arises whether any process or operation or other work is of 27 perennial nature, the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final.

21. In view of what has been stated above, the Division Bench was not justified in its conclusions and on the contrary, learned Single Judge had correctly analysed the position in law. That being so, Civil Appeals are allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

22. In view of the order passed in Civil Appeals no order is necessary to be passed in Writ Petition 529 of 2005.