U.P.Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Board & Anr vs U.P.Vidyut Mazdoor Sangh

2. Uttar Pradesh Vidyut Mazdoor Sangh (first respondent--hereinafter referred to as `Union',) made an application under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975, (`Rules, 1975', for short) before the Labour Commissioner, Kanpur praying therein that order be passed for payment of the same wages and other facilities in favour of contract labour working in second filtration plant of Anpara Thermal Power Project as are being paid by the employer to its employees in the main filtration plant. The Union set up the case that there are two filtration plants in Anpara Thermal Power Project; out of these plants in one plant (for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as `main plant') regular employees are employed by the Electricity Board while in the other filtration plant, contract labour is being employed through contractors. In both filtration plants, the nature of work done by all these employees is same but the workers are paid their wages at different rates. Twenty- six workers, who have been directly appointed by the Electricity Board, are being paid regular pay scale with permissible allowances etc. while twenty-eight contract workers engaged through two contractors are paid at the rate of Rs. 61/- per day for unskilled work and Rs. 71.50 per day for semi-skilled work. The Union asserted that work in both the filtration plants is of 2 the same nature and regular.

3. The present appellants resisted the application made by the Union on diverse grounds. That there are two water filtration plants in Anpara Thermal Power Project was admitted. However, it was submitted that main filtration plant is permanent having the capacity of treating three million gallons water per day while the second one is temporary having the capacity of treating three lac gallons per day. It was further submitted that from permanent filtration plant, supply is given to the entire colony and ITI passed/trained operators are being appointed by the department to run it; these appointments are made by the selection committee through selection procedure on the basis of eligibility and advertisement by the Board. The permanent plant runs 24 hours; it has six pumps and each has the capacity of 170 H.P. The chemicals are mixed at this plant mechanically and for its operation eligible and responsible employees are required. In the other filtration plant which is of temporary nature, employees are engaged through contractor for its operation. The temporary filtration plant is operated by skilled and semi-skilled employees who are engaged by 3 contractors. These workers are paid wages at the rate declared by the labour department. The appellants set up a specific case before the Labour Commissioner that the work of the employees in the two filtration plants cannot be compared and, therefore, the employees working in the temporary filtration plant are not entitled to the same wages and facilities as are being paid to the regular employees working in the main filtration plant.

5. The present appellants challenged the order of the Labour Commissioner by filing writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on May 14, 1999 holding that the findings recorded by the Labour Commissioner required no interference.

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 1 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.

16. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.