- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chemical Mazdoor Panchayat (S) v. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. And Ors. (S)
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeals arise from proceedings concerning wages and service conditions of workmen employed through contractors at Indian Oil Corporation Limited. The Assistant Labour Commissioner had ruled in favour of the workmen, and the Single Judge of the High Court affirmed those findings. On further challenge, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed the concurrent findings, primarily on grounds that: (i) only one representative witness for each class of worker had been examined; and (ii) contract workers could not be equated with employees of five-star hotels or with regular employees recruited directly by the corporation. The present civil appeals were filed by the Chemical Mazdoor Panchayat before the Supreme Court of India challenging the Division Bench’s judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Division Bench of the High Court erred in discarding the evidence of a single witness per class of worker while reversing concurrent findings of fact.
- Whether distinctions drawn by the High Court—based on the nature of the establishment (five-star hotels), source of recruitment, qualification, and slight variations in duties—were legally sustainable under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971.
- Whether the Division Bench’s approach amounted to impermissible discrimination contrary to the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court found the Division Bench’s reversal to be unsustainable for several reasons:
- Adequacy of Evidence: Rejecting testimony solely because only one witness from each category testified is contrary to law; evidentiary value, not the number of witnesses, is determinative.
- Comparability of Workers: The High Court’s view that contract workers could not be compared with employees of five-star hotels was termed discriminatory and contrary to the spirit of Rule 25(2)(v)(a), which seeks parity in wages for contract labour performing similar work.
- Source of Recruitment: Differences in recruitment processes between permanent employees and contract workers do not negate the statutory protection of equal wages conferred by Rule 25.
- Qualifications: The High Court assumed, without analysis of recruitment rules, that contract workers lacked equivalent qualifications; such assumption was unwarranted.
- Nature of Work: Minor variations—e.g., whether a cook prepares snacks or regular food, or whether a gardener performs grafting—do not constitute “substantial difference” sufficient to deny parity.
Because these fundamental errors tainted the High Court’s analysis, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed a fresh hearing.
Holding and Implications
ORDER SET ASIDE AND MATTER REMITTED.
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals by: (i) setting aside the Division Bench judgment that had reversed the findings of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Single Judge; (ii) remitting the case to the High Court’s Division Bench for de novo consideration in the light of Rule 25(2)(v)(a); and (iii) directing the parties to appear before the High Court on 11 April 2017, with the High Court requested to decide the matter within four months. The Court expressly refrained from deciding the merits, so no new precedent on substantive entitlement was set; the immediate consequence is a fresh appellate hearing consistent with the principles outlined.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The concurrent findings of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Single Judge of the High Court have been set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court in a most cursory manner.
3. Firstly, on the ground that only one witness of a particular class of worker had been examined. As such, their deposition is liable to be rejected. In our opinion, it could not have been a valid ground to discard the evidentiary value of the deposition of the witnesses. It is not the number of witnesses in such kind of matters but what is material is evidentiary value and cross examination which has been made. Examination of the single witness to prove a fact may be enough in such cases. Thus, the approach of the High Court is not permissible.
4. The High Court has observed that the workers employed by the contractor cannot be compared with the employees who have worked in Five Star Hotels. This is not a legally permissible way in which the High Court should have approached the case, particularly with respect to spirit of Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 (in short referred to as Rules). In India, there are haves and have-nots, poor workers and proletariat have equal rights. The approach of the High Court is discriminatory and impermissible classification has been made and has no co-relation with respect to equal protection as envisaged Constitutionally.
5. The distinctions made and the findings recorded by the High Court, on the basis of the source of recruitment also, is not correct. There has to be difference between the sources for recruitment even then Rule 25 of the Rules confers protection, as permanent employees has to be inducted by the employer by a different set of procedure, whereas for worker employed by contractor, the procedure of induction is bound to be different. Prima facie protection is conferred of similar wages to the employee, engaged by a contractor. The impact of specific Rule 25 of the aforesaid Rules and law in this regard has to be taken into consideration before coming to a conclusion on this aspect.
6. The qualification aspect vis-à-vis to provision, if any, in recruitment rules has also not been discussed by the High Court in its judgment. There is no consideration of the qualification prescribed for the two different sets of employees merely few employees possess ITI certificate would not make a difference. Thus, the High Court should not have given the finding in the concluding paragraph with respect to qualifications being different without considering the qualifications prescribed for the two sets of different employees. The observation that usually the workers employed by the contractor do not possess the qualification, is based on assumption which was not warranted.
7. Similarly, with respect to the slight variations in the nature of work on the basis of who cooks which item the High Court could not have brushed aside the similarity. Often preparation of snacks is difficult than preparing regular food. There has to be a substantial difference between the nature of the work. That cannot be on the basis of items to be cooked, in the facts of the case. In case, somebody is preparing the regular food and somebody is preparing the snacks that cannot be a substantial ground so as to differentiate the nature of the work performed. Similarly, for Malis, merely the fact that grafting is done by regular Malis would not make much difference.
8. Thus, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and dispose of the appeals. We request the Division Bench to hear the case afresh and in accordance with law to the true spirit behind Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 and also to go through the concurrent findings and reasonings given by the Assistant Labour Commissioner as well as the Single Judge of the High Court, then to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. Let the High Court decide the matter afresh. It is made clear that we have not decided the case finally on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 11.04.2017 We request the High Court to decide the matter afresh within a period of four months.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1092-1180 OF 2017
9. We set aside the order passed by the Single Judge and request the Division Bench to take over writ application to hear the case afresh alongwith other matters so that there is consistency in decision.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 1074/2017
Chemical Mazdoor Panchayat.….Appellant(s)
v.
Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. and Ors.….Respondent(s)
(With interim relief and Office Report)
C.A No. 1090/2017
C.A No. 1092-1180/2017
(With appln(s) for permission to file additional documents and Office Report)
Date : 28/03/2017 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
(Before Arun Mishra and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. J.P Cama, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Neha Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Megha Karnwal, Adv.
Ms. Jayshree Satpute, Adv.
Mr. Anil Kumar Tandale, Adv.
Mr. Pravin H. Parekh, Adv
Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv.
Mr. Akash Jindal, Adv.
Mr. Utkarsh, Adv.
M/s. Parekh & Co., Adv.
Ms. Neha Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, ASG.
Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Santosh Rebello, Adv.
Mr. Ajit Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Jai, Adv.
Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Adv.
Ms. Sushma Verma, Adv.
Ms. Sushma Manchanda, Adv.
Mr. Amrish Kr. Sharma, Adv.
Mr. G.S Makker, Adv.
Mr. R.P Bhatt, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Manish R. Bhatt, Adv.
Mr. Kailash Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Ranjeet Singh, Adv.
Mr. Munjal Bhatt, Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, Adv.
Mr. K. V. Sreekumar, Adv.
Ms. Rajkumari Banju, Adv.
Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
10. The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Alert