Holding

A Labour Court under Sections 11‑C and 13‑A can only interpret standing orders and cannot grant regularisation; such relief is available only on a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act or Section 4‑K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

Summary

The Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sadak Pariyahan Karamchari Union filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 11‑C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, read with Section 13‑A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, seeking a declaration that fifteen contract drivers and conductors be regularised as substantive workmen of the U.P. Road Transport Corporation. The Labour Court allowed the application, directing that the workers receive the minimum wages of regular employees. The Corporation challenged this order; the High Court dismissed the Corporation’s writ petition and upheld the Labour Court’s decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of a Labour Court under Sections 11‑C and 13‑A is confined to interpreting standing orders and does not extend to granting regularisation, which is a remedy available only under a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (or Section 4‑K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act). Consequently, the Court set aside both the High Court judgment and the Labour Court order, directing that the workers may pursue their grievance under Section 4‑K or Section 10.

Issues considered

Whether a Labour Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 11‑C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and Section 13‑A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act can grant regularisation and related benefits to contract workers.
Whether the relief sought by the Union falls within the limited scope of interpretation of standing orders or requires a reference under Section 10/4‑K of the Industrial Disputes statutes.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 10
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946s. 13-A
Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950
U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 11-C, s. 4-K

Subjects

labour lawregularisation of contract workersstanding ordersindustrial disputesjurisdiction of labour courtU.P. Industrial Disputes ActIndustrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act

Judgment

U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION A
I'.

U.P. RAJYA SADAK PARIYAHAN KARAMCHARI UNION

MARCH 9, 2007

[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] B

) Labour Laws:

U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947/Jndustrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act, 1946: C
s. I J-Cls.13-A-Scope of-Application before labour Court for
regularization of certain contract workers-Allowed by Labour Court-Writ
petition of employer dismissed by High Court-Held, Power of labour Court
under the two provisions is much narrower than that under s. I 0 of Industrial D
Disputes Act or under s.4-K of Industrial Disputes Act-labour Court erred
in granting the relief-Impugned orders set aside-Workmen may raise their
grievances u/s 4-K of Industrial Disputes Act or s. l 0 of Industrial Oisputes
. Act.

Respondent-Union filed an application before the Labour Court under E
s.11-C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with section 13-A of the
Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 for a declaration that
persons appointed on contract basis as drivers and conductors, be declared
as regular and substantive workmen of the appellant-Corporation with
consequential benefits. The Labour Court allowed the application. The writ
petition of the Corporation having been dismissed by the High Court, it filed F
:>=- the present appeals.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The power of the Labour Court under section 11-C of the
U.P. lndu;;trial Disputes Act or under Section 13 of the Industrial Employment G
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is much narrower than the power on a reference
.., .... under Section I 0 of the Industrial Disputes Act which corresponds to Section
4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court could not have
granted the relief, it granted as the same could only have been granted on a
851 H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S. C._R.

A regular reference under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act or
under Section IO of the Industrial Disputes Act. Besides, a perusal of the · •-!-
'. ,._
order of the Labour Court shows that it has not referred to any standing order
of the appellant but refers to Rule 2 of the 1981 Regulations which clearly
provides that the Regulations do not apply to employees engaged on contract
B basis. The Labour Court cannot amend the Regulations while hearing an
application under Section ll-C. [Paras 10 and 12) (854-E, F, Gf

1.2. The impugned judgment of the High Court as well as the order of
the Labour Court are set aside. However, it is open to the workmen to raise
their grievances before the authority concerned under Section 4-K of the U.P. ;
C Industrial Disputes Act or under Section IO of Industrial Disputes Act, as
the case may be, and if the State Government refers such a dispute to the
Labour Court or Tribunal, the same will be decided expeditiously.
[Para 14) [855-A, BJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1235 of2007.
D From the Judgment and order dated 6.9.2005 of the High Court of
Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 774 of2002 (M/S).

WITH

C.A. Nos. 1236, 1237 and 1238 of2007.
E
Pradeep Misra for the Appellant.

Kailash Chand for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

F MARKANDEY KATJU, J. I. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been directed against the impugned judgment
and order dated 6.9.2005 of the Uttaranchal High Court in Writ Petition No.
774 of2002.

G 3. The appellant - U.P. Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Corporation'), has been constituted under the Road Transport
Corporation Act, 1950. The respondent which is a Trade Union of the appellant-
Corporation, filed an Application before the Labour Court, Dehradun under
Section 11-C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 194 7 read with Section l 3A
of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, praying for a
H declaration that the 15 persons who were appointed on contract basis as
U.P_ STATE R04.0 TR.A1'SPORT COPR:-.! 1. lJ P RAJY1' SADAK PARl\'AHAN KARAMCH ..,,,Rl UNION IMARKANOEY KATJU. J_ I 853

.. 4--
'drivers' and 'conductors' as shown in the annexed chart, be declared as A
regular and substantive workmen of the Corporation. It was also prayed in
the said Application that the concerned workmen be given all the benefits and
facilities of regular employees.

4. The aforesaid Application was allowed by the Labour Court, Dehradun
by its order dated 19.9.2001. The Labour Court directed that the concerned B
workmen be given the minimum wages admissible to the regular employees
in the pay scales of 'drivers' and 'coniluctors'. The Labour Court also held that
)
the said workmen are employees of the Corporation.
)_

5. It is not disputed that the concerned workmen were appointed on
contract basis. Before the Labour Court, the Corporation had contended that c
Rule 2 ofU.P.S.R.T.C Employees (Other than Officers) Service Regulations,
1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations') clearly mentions that these
regulations shall not apply to employees working on contract basis. The
persons working on contract basis filed Writ Petition No. 41349/1999 Kanchi
Lal and Ors. v. UP.SR. TC before the Allahabad High Court for grant of same D
benefits as the regular employees of the Corporation, but the said writ petition
had been dismissed. However, the objection of the Corporation was rejected
by the Labour ·court. It filed a writ petition thereafter before the High Court
which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

6. It was contended in the writ petition by the appellant that the E
concerned workmen had not been selected in terms of the process of selection
required for appointment of regular employees and hence they cannot be
directed to be given minimum pay scales of regular employees. It was also
contended that the Labour Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by passing the
impugned order dated 19.9.2001 since Section 11-A only pennits interpretation
and application of a standing order and not any particular relief which can
F
_,__
only be given under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

7. It may be noted that the scope of Section 11-C is much narrower than
the scope of a regular reference under Section I 0 of the Industrial Disputes
Act or Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. G
.,,..~
8. Section 11-C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act states:

"11-C. Interpretation, etc. of standing orders - If any question as to
the application or interpretation of a standing order certified under the
H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 3 S.C.R.

A Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, any employer or
workman may refer the question to any one of the Labour Courts
specified for the disposal of such proceeding by the State Government
by notification in the Official Gazette, and the Labour Court to which
the question_ is so referred shall, after giving the parties an opportunity
of being heard, decide the question and such decision shall be final
B and binding on the parties"

9. Similarly Section 13-A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)
Act 1946 states:.

"13-A. Jnterpretalion e/c. of slanding orders - If any question arises
c as to the application or interpretation of a standing order certified
under this Act, any employer or workman or a trade union or other
representative body of the workmen may refer the question to any one
of the Labour Courts constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, and specified for the disposal of such proceedings by the
appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette, and the
D
Labour Court to which the question is so referred shall, after giving
the parties an opportunity of being heard, decide the question and
such decision shall be final and binding on the parties".

I0. In our opinion, the power of the Labour Court under Section 11-C
E of the UP Industrial Disputes Act or under Section 13-A of the Industrial
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 is much narrower than the power of
the Labour Court on a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes
Act which corresponds to Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

11. In our opinion, the Labour Court could not have granted the relief
F it granted by the order dated 19.9.2001, as that could only have been granted
on a regular reference under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act -.x
or under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act:

12. A perusal of the order of the Labour Court dated 19.9.2001 shows
that it has not referred to any standing order of the appellant. On the other
G hand, paragraph 3 of the said order refers to Rule 2 of the 1981 Regulations
which clearly provides that the Regulations do not apply to employees engaged
on contract basis. In our opinion, the Labour Court cannot amend the
Regulations while hearing an application under Section 11-C of the Industrial
Disputes Act.
H
lJ.P. STA.TE ROADTRo\NSPORTCOPRN 1·. UP. RAJYA SADA.K PARJVAH ..i.N K.-\RAMCHARI UNION IMARKANDEY KATJU. J. t 855

13. As already stated above, the scope of Section 11-C is limited to A
decide a question arising out of an application or interpretation of a standing
order and lhe Labour Court cannot go beyond the scope of Section 11-C of
the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act.

14. For the reasons given above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned
judgment of the High Court as well as the order of the Labour Court dated B
19.9.2001 are set aside. However, it is open to the copcerned workmen to raise
their grievances before the concerned authority under Section 4-K of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act or under Section I0 of Industrial Disputes Act, as the
case may be, and if the State Government refers such a dispute to the Labour
Court or Tribunal, we hope that the same will be decided expeditiously. No C
costs.

RP. Appeals allowed.
•