Contempt of Court – When not – Abolition of contract labour system – Workers employed at depots of respondent-Corporation as contract labourers sought regularisation – Issue referred for adjudication – Pending references, an understanding arrived at between the parties recorded in minutes of meeting dated.12.04.1996 – Industrial Tribunal held the workmen entitled to be regularised – Award affirmed till Supreme Court – Workers regularised under Direct Payment System (DPS) – Contempt petitions filed alleging that the direction was to regularise the workers in Departmental Labour System (DLS) and not in DPS – Held: To constitute civil contempt it must be established that disobedience of the order is wilful, deliberate and with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom– In the present case, the issue(s) referred for adjudication was merely for regularisation – Corporation operates four systems of labour, DLS is one such system of engagement – Neither the relief in the references was specific for regularisation in DLS only nor the tribunal, the High Courts or Supreme Court was called upon to deal with that issue specifically – Petitioners assumed that DPS commenced only from 01.05.1996, whereas it is in existence from 1973 – It is not a new set up created by the Corporation pursuant to the minutes recorded on 12.04.1996 as such – Furthermore, DLS is now a dying cadre and the policy of the Corporation at the relevant time entailed regularisation of workmen only under DPS – No case made out for initiating contempt action against the Corporation and its Officers – Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.10(1)(d) – Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – s.10(1) – Labour Law.
Words & Expressions – Departmentalisation – Meaning of – Explained.
Dismissing the contempt petitions, the Court HELD: 1.1 To constitute civil contempt, it must be established that disobedience of the order is wilful, deliberate and with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. Going by the plain text, the issue(s) referred to for adjudication was merely for regularisation. However, the point-in-issue considered by the Tribunal coupled with the operative part of the award, it would at best be a case of directing the respondent Corporation to regularise and departmentalise the concerned workmen, who were party to the stated References. The Corporation operates four systems of labour. The Departmental Labour System is one such system of engagement. The other is Direct Payment System (DPS). The third is No-Work-No-Pay System and fourth, the Mate System. Neither the relief in the References was specific for regularisation in Departmental Labour System only nor the Tribunal, the Madras High Court/Kerala High Court or this Court was called upon to deal with that issue specifically. The claim set up by the petitioner-Union(s) was simpliciter for regularisation of workmen who were named in the annexure(s) to the References. The Tribunal did issue direction to regularise and departmentalise those workmen. It is axiomatic that departmentalisation could also be an engagement in a Department, which could be a separate part or branch/section of the whole Organisation. Departmentalisation is dividing an organisation into different departments or structuring it in a manner, which perform tasks according to the specialisations in the organisation. It may include departments such as functional, product, process, geographical locations, customer, divisional, matrix, planning task force etc. As it is indisputable that the Corporation has four systems of labour engagement including the Direct Payment System (DPS), the petitioner-Union(s) ought to have sought specific relief against the Corporation in that regard. Significantly, the petitioners have assumed that the Direct Payment System (DPS) commenced only from 1.5.1996, whereas it is noticed from the decision of this Court in Workmen of the Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Food Corporation of India that the Direct Payment System (DPS) is in existence from 1973. It is not a new set up created by the Corporation pursuant to the minutes recorded on 12.4.1996 as such. Concededly, the subject References, as well as, the direction issued by the Tribunal, which has been upheld upto this Court is silent about the system in which the concerned workers have to be regularised and departmentalised. Notably, the writ petition filed before the Kerala High Court for implementation of the stated award also sought direction to regularise the concerned workmen under the Direct Payment System (DPS). If that be the position, it is unfathomable as to how the respondent Corporation can be proceeded against for having committed contempt of this Court. [Paras 12-14][658-G-H; 659-A-H; 660-A-C]
Workmen of the Food Corporation of India v. M/s. Food Corporation of India (1985) 2 SCC 136 : [1985] 2 SCR 1065; ESI Corporation v. FCI Workers Union & Ors. Decision of Supreme Court dated 19.11.2019 in C.A. Nos. 8841-8842/2019 – relied on.
1.2 The issue as to regularisation of the concerned workmen under particular labour system had not been put in issue before the Tribunal and upto Supreme Court. A general direction came to be issued to regularise and departmentalise them. Resultantly, the respondents were left with the only option to regularise the concerned workmen as per the extant applicable policy of the Organisation, under the Direct Payment System (DPS). No specific direction was given to the Corporation to regularise the concerned workmen only in the Departmental Labour System. Furthermore, the Departmental Labour System is now a dying cadre and the policy of the Corporation at the relevant time entailed regularisation of such workmen only under the Direct Payment System (DPS). No contempt action can be initiated on the basis of general direction to the respondents to regularise and departmentalise the concerned workmen. [Paras 17, 23][662F; 664-F-G] Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj & Ors. (2014) 16 SCC 204 : [2014] 1 SCR 538 – relied on.
Anil Ratan Sarkar & Ors. v. Hirak Ghosh & Ors. (2002)
4 SCC 21 : [2002] 2 SCR 346 – distinguished. Food Corporation of India & Ors. v. West Bengal Food Corporation of India Workmen’s Union (2018) 9 SCC
469 – held inapplicable.
State of Bihar & Ors. v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors. (2019) 8 SCALE 124; Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 1 : [2001] 2 Suppl. SCR 343; Dinesh Kumar Gupta v. United India Insurance Company Limited & Ors. (2010)
12 SCC 770 : [2010] 13 SCR 599; Bihar State
Government Secondary School Teachers Association v. Ashok Kumar Sinha & Ors. (2014) 7 SCC 416 : [2014]
7 SCR 371; Dineshan K.K. v. R.K. Singh & Anr. (2014)
16 SCC 88 : [2014] 3 SCR 667 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.