Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Contract Workers Seeking Regularization - Remedy Lies Under Industrial Disputes Act. Workers employed through contractor for 25 years cannot seek regularization through CAT or High Court; proper remedy is reference to Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of ID Act.

  • 9
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant and respondent Nos. 4-6 were workers who had been rendering services through a contractor with the Ordinance Factory Board for about 25 years. They filed an Original Application (OA No. 159 of 2013) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Calcutta, seeking regularization of their services. The Tribunal dismissed the OA on 23.05.2013. Aggrieved, they filed a writ petition (WPCT No. 82 of 2015) before the Calcutta High Court, which also dismissed the petition, holding that their remedy lay in approaching the Central Government to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the parties, upheld the High Court's decision. The Court observed that the nature of the controversy involved factual disputes regarding the employment relationship and regularization, which cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition or before the Tribunal. The appropriate forum is the Industrial Tribunal, which can examine evidence and facts. The Court dismissed the appeal but clarified that if a reference is made, the Industrial Tribunal shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observations made in these proceedings.

Headnote

A) Industrial Law - Regularization of Contract Labour - Remedy under Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Workers employed through contractor for 25 years sought regularization before CAT and High Court - Held that the appropriate remedy lies in seeking a reference to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the ID Act, as factual disputes cannot be adjudicated in OA or writ petition (Paras 7-11).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Tribunal and High Court were justified in dismissing the OA and writ petition seeking regularization of services of contract workers.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the remedy lies in seeking a reference to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court clarified that if a reference is made, the Industrial Tribunal shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observations made in these proceedings.

Law Points

  • Industrial Disputes Act
  • 1947
  • Section 10
  • Reference to Industrial Tribunal
  • Regularization of Contract Labour
  • Jurisdiction of CAT and High Court
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2019 LawText (SC) (3) 123

Civil Appeal No. 3290 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 4072 of 2016)

2019-03-29

Abhay Manohar Sapre, Dinesh Maheshwari

Sunil Kumar Biswas

Ordinance Factory Board & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeal against dismissal of writ petition seeking regularization of services of contract workers.

Remedy Sought

Appellant and respondent Nos. 4-6 sought regularization of their services before CAT and High Court.

Filing Reason

Workers employed through contractor for 25 years claimed regularization of services.

Previous Decisions

CAT dismissed OA No. 159 of 2013 on 23.05.2013; High Court dismissed WPCT No. 82 of 2015 on 16.07.2015.

Issues

Whether the Tribunal and High Court were justified in dismissing the OA and writ petition seeking regularization of services.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant and respondent Nos. 4-6 argued that they had been working for 25 years and sought regularization. Respondents (Ordinance Factory Board) contended that the remedy lies under Section 10 of ID Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Disputes regarding regularization of contract workers involve factual controversies that cannot be adjudicated in OA or writ petition; the appropriate remedy is a reference to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Judgment Excerpts

the High Court was right in observing that the remedy of the appellant and respondent Nos.46 herein (writ petitioners) lies in applying to the Central Government to make an industrial reference to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the ID Act the factual controversy cannot be adjudicated in OA by the Tribunal or by the High Court in a writ petition.

Procedural History

Appellant and respondent Nos. 4-6 filed OA No. 159 of 2013 before CAT, Calcutta, which was dismissed on 23.05.2013. They then filed WPCT No. 82 of 2015 before Calcutta High Court, which was dismissed on 16.07.2015. Aggrieved, they filed SLP (C) No. 4072 of 2016, which was converted into Civil Appeal No. 3290 of 2019 and dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29.03.2019.

Acts & Sections

  • Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 10
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Contract Workers Seeking Regularization - Remedy Lies Under Industrial Disputes Act. Workers employed through contractor for 25 years cannot seek regularization through CAT or High Court; proper remedy is reference t...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Easement Rights Dispute Over Pathway — Vendor Cannot Confer Exclusive Right After Prior Grant of Access. Section 48 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 applied to prioritize earlier right of way over later exclusive gra...