Allahabad High Court Upholds Regularization Of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Workmen

Recently, the Allahabad High Court has upheld the award granted by the Industrial Tribunal to the workmen of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority regularizing their services in the Authority establishment.“The Industrial Tribunal while deciding the 16 misc. cases, under Section 16-F of the Act of 1947 has recorded finding of fact that petitioner-authority has violated the provisions of Section 6-E(2)(b) of the Act of 1947 and terminated the services of the workmen w.e.f. 6.2.2003 which is illegal, as such, workmen shall be deemed to be in employment of petitioner-authority which is proper exercise of jurisdiction by Tribunal,” held Justice Chandra Kumar Rai.Factual BackgroundRespondent-employees moved an application under Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, to regularize their services. The petitioner-Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority filed objections stating that the workmen were not their employees. Thereafter, conciliation proceedings failed and the proceeding was referred to the State Government, which then placed the matter before the Industrial Tribunal, Meerut. Subsequently, both parties filed written statements and the respondents also filed a case under Section 6-F of the 1947 Act. The Tribunal, by award dated 29.05.2018, allowed the claim of the respondent-workmen and directed that their services be regularized. Aggrieved, petitioner filed writ petitions against the aforementioned award.Thereafter, cases filed by sixteen workmen were heard and allowed. The Industrial Tribunal held that their services would not be terminated and that they would be treated as in service with all benefits. In response, the petitioner instituted sixteen suits to quash the same. Respondents initiated proceedings under Section 6(H)(1) of the Act of 1947, whereby a recovery certificate was issued. However, they did not pursue it. Before the High Court, GNIDA argued that there was no master-servant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. Thus, it was not open to the respondent to raise an industrial dispute. It was argued that there were no documents showing that the workmen were appointed to the petitioner-authority, and so the Industrial Tribunal could not order for regularization of their services. Petitioner contended that the nature of the work performed by the workmen was not permanent, making the regularization authorised by the Tribunal to be without jurisdiction.Per contra, the respondents argued that the Tribunal had taken all the evidence produced and the law into account, before passing the impugned award. They contended that the petitioner had failed to prove that the workmen had not worked in the establishment of petitioner-authority. Respondents submitted that the petitioner could not terminate the services of the workmen because their claim for regularization was pending, as per Section 6-E(2)(b) of the 1947 Act. High Court VerdictConsidering Section 2(z) of the Act, 1947 and Rule 40 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, the Court held that the workmen had indeed worked in the petitioner-authority. It held that the Industrial Tribunal had passed the award only after considering the evidence and noting that the workmen had been employed for a long period of time against the “permanent nature of work”, and thus a denial of the regularization would be unfair.The Court held that the petitioner had failed to place the original record of hiring before the Tribunal in order to establish that they respondents had not worked in the petitioner-authority, which lead to an adverse inference being drawn by the Tribunal. In Steel Authority of India Ltd. And Others vs. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others. , a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court clarified the position regarding regularization of services of the workmen. It held that “: (a) that the respondents are workmen within the meaning of Section 2(z), being persons employed in the industry to do manual work for reward, and (b) that they were employed by a contractor with whom the appellant-company had contracted in the course of conducting the industry for the execution by the said contractor of the work of removal of presumed which is ordinarily a part of the industry. It follows therefrom, from Section 2(z) read with Sub-clause (iv) of Section 2(i0 of the Act they are workmen of the appellant-company is their employer.”Relying on the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, the Court upheld the order of regularization of workmen as specific findings of facts had been recorded in the award. It held that there was no illegality in the issuance of recovery certificates based on the proceedings initiated by the workmen under Section 6-H (1) of the Act of 1947.Accordingly, the writ petitions filed by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, were dismissed. Case Title: Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority, Gautam Budh Nagar, Through Its Chief Executive Officer v. Hem Singh...

Allahabad High Court Upholds Regularization Of Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Workmen

Upasna Agrawal

Tags