Holding

The Division Bench erred; questions of equal wages for contract labour under Rule 25 must be decided by the Labour Commissioner, and the court’s merit order is set aside.

Summary

The Kagajkal Thikadar Sramik Union filed a representation under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Assam Rules, 1971, seeking equal wages and benefits for contract labourers employed at Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. The Labour Commissioner, after an inspection by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, issued an interim order maintaining the existing wage conditions pending a final decision. The Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court dismissed the union’s writ petition, but the Division Bench reversed the decision and directed the mill to grant equal pay to the contract workers. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench had improperly entered the shoes of the Labour Commissioner and decided a matter that is exclusively within the statutory authority of the Labour Commissioner (or Chief Labour Commissioner). Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the High Court order set aside, and the Labour Commissioner was directed to decide the issue within three months. The Court emphasized that courts should not substitute themselves for the competent labour authority in disputes concerning the nature of work under Rule 25.

Issues considered

Whether the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court could lawfully decide on the merits of the union’s claim for equal wages when the Labour Commissioner had issued an interim order.
Whether courts may intervene in matters concerning the determination of whether contract labour performs the same or similar work as regular employees under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Assam Rules.
Whether the appropriate authority to decide the question of equal wages for contract labour is the Labour Commissioner/Chief Labour Commissioner and not the judiciary.

Legislation cited

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970s. 10

Subjects

contract labourequal wageslabour lawinterim orderjurisdictionSupreme Courtdivision benchrepresentationRule 25Labour Commissioner

Judgment

.,
A HINDU STAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD.
v. •
KAGAJKAL THI.KADAR SRAMIK UNION & ORS.

DECEMBER 14, 2007
B
[DR. ARIJIT P ASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.)

Labour laws:

c Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Assam Rules, 1971
-r. 25 (2)M (a), proviso-Contract labourer claiming wages similar to
regular labourer-Assistant Labour Commissioner after examining
nature ofjob submitted report-Labour commissioner after examining
said report passed interim order allowing existing condition ofwages
and other facilities to continue till further evaluation-Single judge
D
ofHigh Court dismissed writ petition-On writ appeal, Division Bench ' ,,
'-;,'
directed employer-Mill to give equal pay and other benefits to contract
labourer as that ofregular employees-Correctness of-Held: Division
Bench ought not to have ventured roving enquiry-Proper course was
to direct authority concerned to decide the issue.
E
The respondent-union filed a representation on behalf of
contract labourers before the Labour Court for implementation of
Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)
Assam Rules, 1971. The Mill did not submit its comments on the
said representation. Thereafter the Labour Officer, by his letter .-("
F
dated 9.9.1993 forwarded all the materials to the Labour
Commissioner for final decision. On receipt of the same, the Labour
Commissioner directed the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Silchar
to determine the nature of work in the finishing house of the Mill by
G regular workers and contract labourers. Pursuant to the same, the
Assistant Labour Commissioner visited the Mill and after examining
~
the nature of the job performed by the contract labourers and regular
employees, forwarded its report. The Labour Commissioner, after
examining the said report passed an interim order, allowing the
H 774
HINDUSTANPAPERCORPORATIONLTD. v. KAGAJKAL 775
THIKADAR SRAMIK UNION
,. existing condition of wages and other facilities to continue till further A
• evaluation.
The respondent-union filed writ petition which was dismissed
by Single Judge of High Court. On appeal, the Division Bench
allowed the representation of the Trade Union on merits and directed
the appellant-Mill to give equal pay and other benefits to the contract B
labourers as that ofregular employees. Hence the present appeal.
'?· Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The Division Bench of High Court stepped into the
shoes of the Labour Commissioner, perused the materials from the c
records and arrived at a final conclusion on merits and directed the
appellant Mill to provide all the benefits to the contract labourers
on par with regular workers as ifit is the appropriate authority. The
Division Bench ought not to have ventured roving inquiry and
decided the issue leaving the appropriate authority in a lurch. The D
..... proper course is to direct the authority concerned to decide the issue
r expeditiously after affording opportunity to both parties. Though,
the Single Judge has rightly disposed of the writ petition and in view
of the fact that the matter has been ceased by the Labour
Commissioner, the Division Bench committed an error in deciding E
the same on merits and issuing positive direction to the Mill as ifit
is a proper authority. It is settled position that before sorting out the
controversy, the authority is free to take interim arrangement
pending final decision and in such matters it is not desirable forthe
').. courts to interfere and take a decision as ifthere is no competent F
authority for the same. The question whether the work done by
contract labour is the same or similar work as that done by the
workmen directly employed by the principal employer of any
establishment is a matter to be decided by the Chief Labour
Commissioner under the proviso to Rule 25 (ii)(v)(a). G
[Para 5] (778-C·H; 779-A-D-E]
.. BHEL Workers Association, Hardwar and Ors. v. Union ofIndia
' and Ors., (1985] 1SCC630, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8601 of H
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

-~

A 2001.
•
From the final Judgment and Order dated 1.8.2000 of the Gauhati
High Court in Writ Appeal Nu. 195 of 1996.
Shruti Choudhary and Swati Sinha(for Fox Manda! & Co) forthe
B Appellant.
D.K. Agarwal, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, S.K. Singla, Anurag Pandey,
Mihir Kr. Chaudhary and S.C. Patel for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c P. SATHASIVAM, J. I. This appeal is directed against the final
judgment and order dated 01.08.2000 passed by the Division Bench of
the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 195 of 1996 whereby the
High Court allowed the writ appeal, inter a/ia, directing the appellant to
pay equal and similar wages and other benefits to the contract labourers
D who work in the finishing job under Rule 25 (2) (v) of the Contract Labour ,.
-{
(Regulation and Abolition) Assam Rules, 1971 (hereinafter called the
"Rules").
2. Brief facts in a nut shell are as follows:
E The contesting lst respondent herein is a registered Trade Union
having its registered office at Panchgram District Hailakandi, Assam on
behalf of 34 contract labourers hired by a contractor for the appellant-
Hindustan Paper Corporation Ltd. (Cachar Paper Mill) (in short the
"Mill") filed a representation before the Labour Officer/Inspector of
F Assam, Hailakandi through its president for implementation of Rule 25 -f
(2) (v) (a) of the Rules vide their letter dated 13.01.1992. The Labour
Officer and Inspector on the basis of the said representation called for
an explanation/reply from the said Mill. Since there was no response, the
Labour Officer sent another letter dated 17.09.1992 and requested the
G Mill to submit its comments on the said representation. In the absence of
any comments, the Labour Officer proposed to hold an inquiry on • ~
11.03.1993 and the same was communicated to the Mill. Again the date
of enquiry was fixed to 29.04.1993. The Labour Officer conducted the
inquiry and forwarded a letter to the Mill on 04.06.1993. On receipt of
H the copy of the said inquiry report, a reply was sent by the Mill to the
HINDUSTAN PAPER CORPORATION LTD. v. KAGAJKAL 777
THIKADAR SRAMIK UNIO>J [P. SATHASIVAM,.T.]
.,, Labour Officer contending that the contract labour and the regular labour A
..'• • are on two different footings and there is a reasonable classific::tion
between them. The Labour Officer, in his letter dated 02.07.1993
i forwarded the reply of the Mill to the Trade Union thereby seeking
comments on the said letter. Thereafter, the Labour Officer, by his letter
dated 09.09.1993 forwarded all the materials to the Labour B
Commissioner, Assam for final decision. On receipt of the same, the
Labour Commissioner directed the Assistant Labour Commissioner,
Silchar to determine the nature of work in the finishing house of the Mill
at Panchgram by regular workers and contract labourers. Pursuant to the
same, the Assistant Labour Commissioner visited the Mill and after
examining the nature of the job being performed by the contract labourers
c
and regular employees forwarded his report by letter dated 25.07.1994.
The Labour Commissioner, after examining the report submitted by the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, Silchar passed an interim order dated
03.02.1995, thereby allowing the existing condition of wages and other
facilities to continue till further evaluation and a final settlement is arrived D
""r in regard thereto. Aggrieved by the said order, the Trade Union filed Civil
Rule No. 1359of1995 before the Single Judge in the Gauhati High Court.
The learned Single Judge, by his order dated 13. 02.1996, dismissed the
said writ petition. The Trade Union filed a Writ Appeal No. 195 of 1996
before the Division Bench. By order dated 01.08.2000, while examining E
the validity of the interim order passed by the Labour Commissioner, the
Division Bench allowed the representation of the Trade Union on merits
and directed the appellant-Mill to give equal pay and other benefits to
the contract labourers as that of regular employees. Questioning the said
').. order, the Mill has filed the above appeal. F
3. Heard Ms. Shruti Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant-Mill and Mr. D.K. Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing
for the first respondent-Trade Union.
4. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the order G
of the Division Bench is justifiable when the Labour Commissioner passed
~
an order as an interim arrangement for continuing the existing conditions
• of wages and other facilities till final settlement is arrived at?
5. It is seen from the materials placed that on the basis of the
representation received from the Union for payment of equal wages on H
778 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A par with regular employees, the Labour Commissioner, Gauhati instructed f
the Assistant Labour Commissioner to submit a report after personal
verification. Till final decision being taken on the basis of the report and
other materials as an interim arrangement, the Labour Commissioner
•
directed that the "existing conditions of wages and other facilities continue
B till on circumspection and further evaluation a final settlement is arrived at
in this regard later". The above direction makes it clear that it is only an
interim arrangement till final decision being taken. When this was
challenged by the Union before the learned Single Judge, the learned Judge
based on earlier decisions of this Court and finding that the question
c whether the works done by the contract labourers is the same or similar
as done by the workmen directly employed is a matter to be decided by
the Labour Commissioner rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the
Union. However, the Division Bench after knowing of the factual position
including the fact that Labour Commissioner has called for a report and
the issue is under con5ideration, stepped into the shoes of the said authority
D (Labour Commissioner) perused the materials from the records including
the report of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Silchar and arrived at .I
'{
a final conclusion on merits and directed the appellant-Mill to provide all
the benefits to the contract labourers on par with regular workers as if it
is the appropriate authority. It is made clear that we are not under
E estimating the claim/entitlement of the contract labourers. The point is that
when the competent authority, i.e., Labour Commissioner, ceased the
matter, instructed his subordinate to inspect the mill and submit a report
with regard to the actual state of affairs between the contract labourers
and the regular employees of the Mill, we are of the view that the Division
F Bench ought not to have ventured roving inquiry and decide the issue ~
leaving the appropriate authority in a lurch. The proper course as held by
th!s Court on several occasions is to direct the authority concerned to
decide the issue expeditiously after affording opportunity to both parties.
Though, the learned Single Judge has rightly disposed of the writ petition
and in view of the fact that the matter has been ceased by the Labour
G
Commissioner, the Division Bench committed an error in deciding the
same on merits and issuing positive direction to the Mill as if it is a proper ~

authority. It is settled position that before sorting out the controversy, the •
authority is free to take interim arrangement pending final decision and in
such matters it is not desirable for the courts to interfere and take a
H
HINDUSTANPAPERCORPORATIONLTD. v. KAGAJKAL 779
THIKADAR SRAMIK UNION [P. SATHASIV AM, J.]
decision as if there is no competent authority for the same. A
6. It is worth while to refer to the decision of this Court in BHEL
Workers Association, Hardwar and Ors. v. Union ofIndia and Ors.,
[1985] 1 sec 630 which is identical to the issue before us. The following
conclusion in para 6 are relevant:
B
". .. .. . . .. If there is any dispute with regard to the type of work,
the dispute has to be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner
(Central). It is clear that Parliament has not abolished contract
labour as such but has provided for its abolition by the Central
Govemment in appropriate cases under Section I 0 of the Contract C
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. It is not for the Court
to enquire into the question and to decide whether the employment
of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any
establishment should be abolished or not. This is a matter for the
decision of the Government after considering the matters required D
to be considered under Section 10 of the Act. Similarly the question
whether the work done by contract labour is the same or similar
work as that done by the workmen directly employed by the
principal employer of any establishment is a matter to be decided
by the Chief Labour Commissioner under the proviso to Rule 25
(ii )(v)(a) .......... " E

We are in respectful agreement with the said decision.
6. We are satisfied that the Division Bench was not justified in passing
the impugned order and the same deserves to be set aside, accordingly
we do so. However, we direct the Labour Commissioner to decide the F
issue raised by the Union by way of representation de hors to the
observation made by the Division Bench and pass an order within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment after
affording opportunity to both parties. It is made clear that we have not
expressed anything on the merits of the claim ofboth the parties. G
7. In the light of the above discussion, the civil appeal is allowed.
No costs.
D.G. Appeal allowed.
H