Supreme Court of India
HIMMAT SINGH AND ORS.versusL.C.I. INDIA LTD. AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 125
- Decided
- 31 January 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
A mutually destructive plea that the workers are both contractor's workmen and the principal employer's workmen is impermissible; common‑law principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence apply, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
Summary
The Indian Explosive Limited, a urea manufacturer, employed several licensed contractors who in turn engaged workers. The Fertilizer Workers Union sought regularisation of these workers under Rule 25(v)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Contract Labour Rules, arguing they performed work similar to the company's own workmen and deserved comparable conditions. The Labour Commissioner allowed the application for workers of two contractors but dismissed it for others; the High Court upheld this order. The State Government referred a dispute concerning 61 such labourers to the Labour Court, which held they were not workmen of the principal employer and denied them permanent status. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the workers could not simultaneously claim to be workmen of the contractor and of the principal employer, as such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible, and that common‑law principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence apply in industrial adjudication. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether workers engaged through licensed contractors can be treated as workmen of the principal employer for purposes of regularisation under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
- Whether a party may raise a mutually contradictory plea that it is both a contractor's workman and the principal employer's workman in industrial adjudication.
- Whether the common‑law doctrines of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence are applicable in proceedings under the Contract Labour Act and related industrial dispute statutes.
- Whether a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act may espouse the cause of such workers in both Labour Court and writ proceedings.
Legislation cited
Subjects
contract labourregularisationindustrial disputeestoppelwaiveracquiescencemutually destructive pleatrade unionindustrial adjudication
Judgment
(2008] 2 S.C.R. 235
HIMMAT SINGH AND ORS. A
v.
l.C.I. INDIA LTD. AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7066 of 2001)
JANUARY 31, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Labour laws:
Principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence -
Applicability of, to industrial adjudication - Definite stand by C
employees that they were working under contractors -
Contradictory and inconsistent plea that they were also
workmen of the principal employer - Permissibility of - Held:
Raising such a mutually destructive· plea is impermissible, in
law - Common law principles of estoppel, waiver a'(id D
acquiescence are applicable in an industrial adjudication -
Uttar Pradesh Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition)
Rules, 1975 - Rule 25(v)(a) - Contract Labour (Regulation
and Abolition) Act, 1970 - Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes
A~1~! E
The Indian Explosive Limited, engaged in
manufacture of urea, was covered under the Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. It had many
licenced contractor. These licenced contractors engaged
J. many persons to the work contracted with them. The F
Workers Union filed an application under Rule 25(v)(a) of
the U.P. Contract Labour (Regularisation and Abolition)
Rules, 1975. This was for the relief that the different
persons working under the different licensed contractors
were doing work similar to the work assigned to the G
-..... workmen of the company and were entitled to the similar
conditions of service. Proceedings were initiated. The
Labour Commissioner allowed the application so far as
persons engaged by the Contractor-R and one more
235 H
__._
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. )
A licensed contractor were concerned but for rest of the
persons application was dismissed. This order of the
Labour Commissioner was upheld by the High Court.
During pendency of the proceedings under Rule 25,
disputes were raised by the Union for the benefit of the
B workmen engaged by the Contractor-R. The dispute was
whether 61 labourers should be declared permanent and
if so, then from which date and with what other ...,,.
particulars. The State Government referred this industrial
dispute to the Labour Court under the Uttar Pradesh
c Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court recorded
finding in negative as well as in positive form. These
findings were that these workmen were not appointed by
the principal employer, that they were not working as
helper to the fitters, that they were not paid by the r~
~
company and were not given work order by contractor- 4'
D
R. The Labour Court further held that the workmen were
engaged in a 'contract for intermittent work and
themselves claimed to be workmen of the contractor-R in y~
t
proceedings under Rule 25 and got benefit under the r
same. On the basis of these findings, the Labour Court
E decided the dispute against workmen and held that they
were not entitled to become permanent with the company. >-
I
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that
the High Court's approach is hyper technical and the
F benefits intended by various beneficial statutes have not .A
been kept in view.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court t
HELD: The workmen whether before the Labour 1-
Court or in writ proceedings were represented by the same
G
union. A trade union registered under the Trade Unions
·Act is entitled to espouse the cause of the workmen. A .,..
definite stand was taken by the employees that they had
been working under the contractors. It would, thus, not i-
lie in their mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent
H
>-
I-
t
___.__
HIMMAT SINGH AND ORS. v. l.C.I. INDIA LTD. 237
AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]
------;--
plea that they were also the workmen of the principal A
employer. To raise such a mutually destructive plea is
impermissible in law. Such mu~ually destructive plea,
should not be allowed to be raised even in an industrial
adjudication. Common law principles of estoppel, waiver
and acquiescence are applicable in an industrial B
adjudication. [Para 10] [239-F, G; 240-A, B]
Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
2006(12) sec 233 - relied on.
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7066 c
of 2001.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 17.10.1999 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 59/
1993.
D
P.K. Jain for the Appellants.
..,.___
U.A. Rana, Abhishek Rao, Mis. Gagrat & Co., R.S. Suri,
Shrish Kr. Misra~ Garvesh Kabra and Ajay K. Agrawal for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to
the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad
High Court dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants.
.)., Challenge before the High Court was to the order passed by F
the Presiding Labour Court (II) U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication case-
Arbitration dispute No. 164 of 1989.
2. The following question was sent to the Labour Court for
decision under Section 4(iv) of the U.P. State Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (in short the 'State Act): G
.....
"Whether 61 labourers mentioned in the Appendix should
be declared permanent? If so, then from which date ano
with what other particulars?"
.::J 3. The Labour Court held that 61 labourers connected with H
.,
~·
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2Q08] 2 S.C.R.
A the case do not possess the right to be declared permanent
under the employer- respondent No ..1. So far as the question
to be made permanent under the contractor, it was found that
they did not want to be declared permanent under the contractor.
4. Challenge in the writ petition revolved around the
8 question as to the effect of the Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the "Act"). In the background of the
definition of the word "employer" as in clause IV of Section 2(i)(iv)
of the State Act, The Indian Explosive Limited is a manufacturer
of Urea and is covered under the Act. It is registered under
C Chapter Ill of the same Act and has many licensed contractor
including one Abdul Rehman (hereinafter referred to as the
'Contractor'). These licensed contractors engaged many
persons to do the work contracted with them. Fertilizer Workers
Union (hereinafter referred to as the 'Union') filed an application
D under Rule 25 (v)(a) of the U.P. Contract Labour (Regularisation
and Abolition) Rules, 1975 (in short the "Rules") framed under
the Act before the Labour Commissioner.
5. This was for the relief that the different persons working
under the different licensed contractors are doing work similar
E to the work assigned to the workmen of the company and should
have similar conditions of service regarding wages, holidays
etc. Proceedings were initiated. In the proceedings under Rule
25 of the Rules, the Labour Commissioner by his order dated
15.12.1984 allowed the application so far as persons engaged
F by the Contractor Rehman and one more licensed contractor
but for rest of the persons application for the Union was
dismissed. The order of the Labour Commissioner was upheld
by the High Court. During pendency of the proceedings, under
Rule 25 disputes were raised by the Union which is the subject
G matter of consideration for the benefit of the workmen engaged .,...
by the Contractor-Rehman. As noted above, the Labour Court
rejected the application.
a
6. Mr. P.K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the High Court's approach is hyper technical and
H
~
HIMMAT SINGH AND ORS. v. l.C.I. INDIA LTD. 239
AND ORS. [PASAYAT, J.]
-r the benefits intended by various beneficial Statutes have not A
• been kept in view.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
supported the judgment.
8. A few observations made by the High Court which are B
relevant need to be noted. It was held by the High Court as follows:
"The labour court has held that the petitioners were not.
working as helpers to the fitters; they were not paid by the
company; and were engaged on contract for intermittent ·
work i.e. they did not have regular or permanent work. The c
work that the petitioners do may be similar to the work of
the workman of the company, but they are not doing the ·
work that is ordinary part of the industry. This is for reason
that they-
D
• did not have permanent work;
• were engaged in intermittent work and
'f>-;..,
• themselves claimed to be workmen of the contractor
Rehman in proceedings under Rule 25 of the Labour
E
Contract Act and got benefit under the same."
9. Similarly, the Labour Court noted that contractor Rehman
had applied to the administration for licence under the State
Contract Labour Act and considering the nature of the contract
licence has been granted to him.
.• 10. In Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
F
[2006(12) SC 233] it was inter-alia held as follows:
"The workmen whether before the Labour Court or in writ
proceedings were represented by the same union. A trade
G
union registered under the Trade Unions Act is entitled to
espouse the cause of the workmen. A definite stand was
taken by the employees that they had been working under
the contractors. It would, thus, in our opinion, not lie in their
mouth to take a contradictory and inconsistent plea that
H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
A they were also the workmen of the principal employer. To
raise such a mutually destructive plea is impermissible in
law. Such mutually destructive plea, in our opinion, should
not be allowed to be raised even in an industrial
adjudication. Common law principles of estoppel, waiver
B and acquiescence are applicable in an industrial
adjudication."
11. In view of the factual position highlighted above and
the. ratio of the decision in Steel Authority's case (supra), the
inevitable result is that the appeal is sans merit, deserves
C dismissal, which we direct with no order as to costs.
D.G. Appeal dismissed.
t-
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "contract labour"Sign in to search