Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Labour Commissioner and the High Court erred by not properly evaluating the nature, duties, skill and dimensions of the work, and therefore set aside their orders, remitting the application for fresh consideration.

Summary

The Uttar Pradesh Vidyut Mazdoor Sangh (the Union) filed an application under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975, seeking equal wages for contract workers employed in a temporary water‑filtration plant of the Anpara Thermal Power Project as those paid to regular employees in the permanent main filtration plant. The Board (U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Board) opposed the application, contending that the two plants differed in capacity, permanence, skill requirements and responsibilities, and therefore the work was not the same or similar. The Labour Commissioner and the Allahabad High Court held that the contract workers performed similar work and ordered that they be paid the same rates as the regular staff. The Supreme Court examined whether the statutory test of "same or similar work" had been applied correctly, emphasizing that the nature of duties, degree of skill and dimensions of the job must be examined, and found that the lower authorities had not considered the evidence or explained their conclusions. Consequently, the Court set aside both the Labour Commissioner’s order and the High Court judgment and remitted the matter to the Labour Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The appeal was partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether contract labour employed in the temporary filtration plant performs the same or similar kind of work as regular employees in the permanent main plant within the meaning of Rule 25(2)(v)(a).
Whether the Labour Commissioner and the High Court correctly applied the statutory test of "same or similar work" without proper consideration of the nature, skill and dimensions of the work.
Whether the application under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) should be restored for fresh consideration.

Subjects

contract labourequal pay for equal workRule 25wage paritylabour lawUttar Pradeshtemporary plantpermanent plantLabour CommissionerSupreme Court

Judgment

(2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 587

U.P. RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN BOARD & ANR. A
. ->-
v.
UTTAR PRADESH VIDYUT MAZDOOR SANGH
Civil Appeal No. 1989 of 2002

NOVEMBER 4, 2009
B
[ D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]

.... 'f Uttar Pradesh Contract Labour (Regulation and
Abolition) Rules, 1975 - Rule 25(2)(v)(a) - Contract labour
engaged in temporary filtration plant of power project through c
contractor - Application ulr. 25(2)(v)(a) seeking wages at rate
admissible to regular employees working in the main plant -

...
Allowed by Labour Commissioner as well as High Court -
\ Interference with - Held: Labour Commissioner as well as
High Court did not consider the nature of duties of the staff it:J D
the two categories, degree of skill and dimensions of the job
--1
for concluding about the similarity of work - It did not advett
to the evidence and material placed before it - Thus, matter
remitted back to Labour Commissioner for fresh consideration
E
( The question which arose for consideration in thi~
-{ appeal is whether the Labour Commissioner as well as
J
the High Court were justified in holding that the workmen
+- employed by the contractors in the temporary filtration
plant were performing similar kind of work as the
... workmen directly employed by the electricity board in the
main plant, thus, were entitled to same wages and other
F

facilities as' applicable to the workmen directly employed
1 by the electricity board.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court G
~
HELD: 1.1. Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975

587 H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A incorporates the principal of 'equal pay for equal work'.
~- .
By statutory provision, it is mandated that the employees
engaged by the employer through contractor who
perform the same or similar kind of work must be paid
the same wages and facilities as being paid to the
B employees employed directly by the principal employer
of the establishment. In case of any controversy as to
whether the workmen employed by the contractor
perform the same or similar kind of work as employed v~
directly by the principal employer of the establishment,
c the Labour Commissioner has been empowered to
resolve such dispute. Nature of work, duties and
responsibilities attached thereto are relevant in
comparing and evaluating as to whether the workmen
employed through contractor perform the same or similar
D kind of work as the workmen directly employed by the
.....
principal employer. Degree of skill and various
dimensions of a given job have to be gone into to reach r-
a conclusion that nature of duties of the staff in two
categories are on par or otherwise. Often the difference
E may be of a degree. Nature of work cannot be judged by
mere volume of work; there may be qualitative difference
as regards reliability and responsibility. [Paras 9 and 1OJ
[592-G-H; 593-A-C]

2.1. In the instant case, despite a specific case set up +
F by the appellants as regard the details of works in two
water filtration plants before the Labour Commissioner to
show that the contract labour in filtration plant engaged
through the contractors do not perform the same or
similar kind of work as is done by the employees
G employed directly by the employer in main plant, the
Labour Commissioner did not advert to these aspects at
all. The Labour Commissioner ought to have adverted to
the nature of duties of the staff in the two categories,
degree of skill and dimensions of the job for reaching the
H
U.P. RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN BOARD & ANR. v. UTTAR 589
PRADESH VIDYUT MAZDOOR SANGH

conclusion that the work done by the contract labour in A
the second filtration plant is same or similar to the kind
-i
of work done by the employees employed by the
principal employer directly in the main plant. There is no
discussion at all by the Labour Commissioner as to how
he arrived at the conclusion about similarity of work. The B
evidence let in by the parties and the material placed was
not considered by the Labour Commissioner. [Paras 11',
12 and 13] [593-0;595-G-H; 596-A-C]
.... 'I
2.2. The order of Single Judge is no better. He did not
consider any thing. The judgment of the Division Bench,
c
though runs in nine foolscap typed pages but out of that,
eight pages relate to maintainability of appeal. [Para 14]
[596-D]

2.3. The consideration of the question as to whether D
>
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 i_n the main plant by the Labour Commissioner
as well as High Court is highly unsatisfactory. In such a E
situation, the impugned judgment of the High Court as'
well as the order by the Labour Commissioner is set
aside. The application made by the Union under Rule
j 25(2)(v)(a) of the Rules, 1975 is restored to the file of
.... Labour Commissioner for fresh consideration in F
accordance with law. [Para 15] (596-G-H; 597-A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
1989 of 2002.

From the Judgment & Order dated 3.8.1999 in Special G
Appeal No. 516 of 1999 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Shobha Dikshit, Pradeep Misra, Daleep Kr. -Dhayani,
Manoj Kr. Sharma for the Appellants. H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A J.C. Batra, Goodwill lndeevar for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.M. LODHA, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is
directed against the judgment dated August 3, 1999 passed
B by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby special
appeal preferred by the present appellants against the judgment
and order dated May 14, 1999 passed by the Single Judge has
been dismissed. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition
preferred by the present appellants challenging the order dated
C October 24, 1998 passed by the Labour Commissioner, U.P.

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
o Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1975,
('Rules, 1975', for short) before the Labour Cqmmissioner,
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
E 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
. \
F empioyed 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
G 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
H both the filtration plants is of the same nature and regular.
U.P. RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN BOARD & ANR. v. UTTAR 591
PRADESH VIDYUT MAZDOOR SANGH [R.M. LODHA, J.]

3. The present appellants resisted the application made A
.~j.
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 B
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
i.-. i
by the department to run it; these appointments are made by
the selection committee through selection procedure on the c
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 D
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
contractors. These workers are paid wages at the rate declared
by the labour department. The appellants set up a specific case E
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
't are not entitled to the same wages and facilities as are being
paid to the regular employees working in the main filtration
F
plant.

4. The Labour Commissioner, however, was not
persuaded by the reply submitted by the Electricity Board and

" vide his order dated October 24, 1998 held that the contract
labour in temporary filtration plant should be paid the wages at
the rate admissible to the workers in the main plant.
G
~
'
~
5. The present appellants challenged the order of the
Labour Commissioner by filing writ petition before the High
H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

~·
A 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 .

B .6. The special appeal preferred by the present appellants ~
;
before Division Bench was held not maintainable. Even on J:c
merits, the Division Bench held that the view of the Single
Judge did not commend itself for interference in view of the
order passed by the Labour Commissioner holding that the 'r -"''
employees employed through the contractor were performing
c same or similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed
>
•
by the appellants.

7. We heard Ms. Shobha Dikshit, learned Senior Counsel
for the appellants and Mr. J.C. Batra, learned Senior Counsel
D for the Union.

8. Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Rules, 1975 provides that in
t-
cases where the workmen employed by the contractor perform
the same or similar kind of work as the workmen directly
E employed by the principal employer of the establishment, the
wage rates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of
service of the workmen by the contractor shall be the same as
applicable to the workmen directly employed by the principal
employer of the establishment. It further provides. that in case \,
t
F of any dispute with regard to the type of work, the Labour
Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh shall decide the same and his
decision shall be final.

9. It would be, thus, seen that Rule 25(2)(v)(a) incorporates
the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. By statutory
G provision, it is mandated trat the employees engaged by the
.
•
'
employer through contractor who perform the same or similar
kind of work must be paid the same wages and facilities as ~
being paid to the employees employed directly by the principal ,,.',_
employer of the establishment. In case of any controversy as
H
U.P RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN BOARD & ANR. v. UTTAR 593
PRADESH VIDYUT MAZDOOR SANGH [R.M. LODHA, J.]

--
'
}-
to whether the workmen employed by the contractor perform
the same or similar kind of work as employed directly by the
A

principal. employer of the establishment, the Labour
Commissioner has been empowered to resolve such dispute.

10. Nature of work, duties and responsibilities attached
B
thereto are relevant in comparing and evaluating as to whether
the workmen employed through contractor perform the same
or similar kind of work as the workmen directly employed by
" -; the principal employer. Degree of skill and various dimensions
of a given job have to be gone into to reach a conclusion that
nature of duties of the staff in two categories are on par or
c
otherwise. Often the difference may be of a degree. It is well
settled that nature of work cannot be judged by mere volume
of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability

- ~
and responsibility.

· 11. In the instant case, except recording that the contract
D

labour engaged through contractors is doing the similar work,
the Labour Commissioner in its order has not adverted to the
evidence and material placed before it. The only consideration
by the Labour Commissioner in its order dated October 24, E
1998 is as follows :

"I have fully considered all the facts and perused the
-+ records and documents produced by the parties. On the
basis of the facts submitted, there is no reason before me
F
on the basis of which the contract labour engaged through
contractors who is working the similar work, should be
given wages at a lesser rate than the permanent
- employees. Only minimum qualification could be the basis
for the worker of both the plants to some extent. Therefore,
G
considering all the facts my opinion is that 28 contract
- A_
labour in temporary plant through contractor Mis. Eastern
Engineering Corporation and Mis. Kheroni Constructions
Company should be paid the wages at the rate

H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADOL.) S.C.R.

A admissible to the workers/labours in permanent plant. This i
is my decision in respect of application ...... " -\--
- ,

12. As a matter of fact, the present appellants specifically
set out the details of works in two water filtration plants thus :
B "There are two water filtration plants in Anpara Project.
One is permanent having the capacity of treating 3 million
Gallon water per day (3 M.G.D) or 30 lacs gallon per day
and the second is temporary having capacity of treating ~ "·1
3 Million Gallons per day i.e. 3 lacs gallons per day. From I

c permanent treatment plant, water supply is given to the
entire permanent colony. This plant is very important and
permanent. Therefore, l.T.I. passed/trained operators are
being appointed by the department to run it. The
appointments are being made by the Selection
D Committee through selection procedure on the basi's of
eligibility and advertisement by the Board. Therefore, the
operators and employees appointed on this plant are
t--
'"
permanent employees of the department and they are fully
responsible for the work done by them. The equipments
E installed at this plant are of permanent nature and it is
being run 24 hours (day and night). There are 6 pumps at
this plant and each has the capacity of 170 H.P. and
consumes 9302.40 watts electricity. The chell'\icals are lh

mixed at this plant mechanically and for its operation +
F eligible and responsible employees are required. The
salary of these employees comes in the payscale of
permanent employees who have been appointed. There
are 26 employees have been appointed and working in
~
this plant.
G
The other filtration plant is of temporary nature and is being
operated till the next phase of the project is completed and -)>._ -

after the completion of next phase it will be closed. From
this plant water is supplied to the temporary colony and
project area. It is being operated through contractor. The
H
. ..
U.P. RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN BOARD & ANR. v. UTTAR 595
PRADESH VIDYUT MAZDOOR SANGH [R.M. LODHA, J.]

__,. Department makes the payment to the contractor on the A
basis of itemwise as per the work executed and not labour
wise. The contractor used to make payment to his
employees on the basis of minimum wages declared by
the Government from time to time and not less than that
amount. The contractor get this plant operated by his 3 8
unskilled and 3 semi-skilled employees.

The basic pay of the regularly operated appointed by the
~
'
Board are water filtration plant is as follows :

Operators-Basic Pay Rs. 1200 D.A.2572 c
Local compensatory Allowances 180.

Interim Relief 340. Total 4292 per month.

Labourers : Basic Pay Rs. 900 D.A. 1931 D
~
/ '
Local compensatory Allowance Rs. 120

Interim Relief Rs. 300 Total Rs. 3251 per month

The contractors used to pay to his semi-skilled employees E
Rs. 1857.87 per month and to unskilled employees Rs.
1580.23 per month which are declared by Labour
,,..
Department to the employees in temporary filtration plant.
+ Its photocopy is enclosed.
F
The above facts show that it will not be justiciable to
compare the work and facilities of the employees working
in permanent filtration plant with the employees working in
A-
Temporary Filtration Plant."
G
13. Despite such a specific case set up by the present
- "" appellants before the Labour Commissioner to show that the
contract labour in filtration plant engaged through the contractor$
do not perform the same or similar kind of work as is done by
the employees employed directly by the employer in main plant,
H --
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
\· .

A the Labour Commissioner did not advert to these aspects at
all. The Labour Commissioner ought to have adverted to the
nature of duties of the staff in the two categories, degree of skill
and dimensions of the job for reaching the conclusion that the
work done by the contract labour in the second filtration plant
B is same or similar to the kind of work done by the employees
employed by the principal employer directly in the main plant.
There is no discussion at all by the Labour Commissioner as
to how he arrived at the conclusion about similarity of work. The
~ ,
evidence let in by the parties and the material placed by them
c seem to have not at all been considered by the Labour
Commissioner.

14. The order of Single Judge is no better. He has simply
not considered any thing. Insofar as Division Bench is
concerned, although, the judgment runs in nine foolscap typed
D
pages but out of that, eight pages relate to maintainability of
appeal. In one paragraph, on merits, the Division Bench said
t-
thus:

"........ ,we are of the considered view that the judgment of
E the learned Single Judge does not commend itself for
interference on merits. The learned Single Judge has
committed no illegality in maintaining the order passed by
the Labour Commissioner holding that the workmen on ....
whose behalf application under the proviso to rule ~-
F 25(2)(v)(a) of the U.P. Rules was filed, though employed
by the Contractor, were performing the same or similar kind
of work as the workmen directly employed by the appellant
and therefore, the wage rates and other conditions of
service of the workmen of the contractor shall be the same :-
G as applicable to the workmen directly employed by the
appellants on the same or similar kind of works."
>- -~
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
H
U.P. RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN BOARD & ANR. v. UTTAR 597
PRADESH VIDYUT MAZDOOR SANGH [R.M. LODHA, J.]

as the employees directly employed by the principal employer A
in the main plant by the Labour Commissioner as well as High
Court is highly unsatisfactory.' In a situation such as this, we 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 B
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 C
as to costs.

N.J. Appeal partly allowed.