U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – ss.6E, 6N – Non-compliance with:
Held: The pattern of direct oversight and wage disbursement negates the stand of the Respondent-Employer that the AppellantWorkmen were “contractor’s personnel” – Appellants were pressing for regularization and proper wages through pending conciliation proceedings, however, the Employer proceeded to discontinue their services, without issuing prior notice or granting retrenchment compensation – Discontinuation of the Appellants’ services, effected without compliance with ss.6E and 6N was illegal – Appellants were performing the same tasks of planting, pruning, general upkeep as regular Gardeners – The principle of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be casually disregarded when workers continuously served for extended periods in roles resembling those of permanent employees – Long-standing assignments under the Employer’s direct supervision belie any notion that these were mere short-term casual engagements – Employer’s plea of lack of an employeremployee relationship is not supported by evidence – Furthermore, reliance on a general “ban on fresh recruitment” cannot be used to deny labor protections to long serving workmen – Uma Devi cannot be used to justify exploitative engagements persisting for years without the Employer undertaking legitimate recruitment – Impugned order of the High Court, to the extent it confines the Appellants to future daily-wage engagement without continuity or meaningful back wages, is set aside – Orders/communications terminating services, quashed – Respondent shall reinstate and regularize the Appellants – Appellants to be treated as continuing in service from the date of their termination, entitled to 50% of the back wages in the terms directed. [Paras 10, 13, 11,18] Labour Laws – Labour jurisprudence – Failure of Employer to produce muster rolls – Adverse inference can be drawn against the Employer:
Held: Failure of the Employer to furnish muster rolls in full despite directions, leads to an adverse inference – Indian labour law strongly disfavors perpetual daily-wage or contractual engagements in circumstances where the work is permanent in nature – Morally and legally, workers who fulfil ongoing municipal requirements year after year cannot be dismissed summarily as dispensable, particularly in the absence of a genuine contractor agreement. [Para 15]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.