- Case
- COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL AND ANOTHER v. THE DEPUTY CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER, (CENTRAL), O/o DY. CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER, MUMBAI AND OTHE (Bombay High Court, 18-03-2025)
- Law
- Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, Industrial Disputes Act.
Facts: The Petitioners, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research and CSIR-National Environmental Engineering Research Institute, challenged an order directing them to grant pay parity to contract laborers with directly employed regular workers. The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) had ordered this parity based on Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971, and a letter from the Joint Secretary (Admin) of the parent ministry. The contract laborers were engaged through M/s Eagle Security and Personnel Services for cleaning, sanitation, and other jobs.
Procedural Posture: The case came before the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay as a Writ Petition challenging the order of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner. The Petitioners had previously filed a Writ Petition (No. 6230/2011) challenging a similar order, in which the High Court directed the Respondent No. 1 to grant opportunity to the parties in terms of the proceedings recorded by it on 15/12/2010.
Issue: Did the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) have the jurisdiction to direct the Petitioners to grant pay parity to contract laborers with directly employed regular workers, and was the order sustainable under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971?
Holding: The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the order of the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central).
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Rule 25(2)(v)(a) of the CL (R & A) Central Rules empowers the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner to decide disagreements regarding the type of work performed by contract laborers and directly employed workers. The Court found that the contract workers were performing the same or similar kind of work as the regular employees. The Court also noted that the Petitioners failed to demonstrate what kind of work the contract workers were actually doing, and that there was a significant number of vacancies in NEERI, suggesting that contract workers were being used in place of regular employees. The Court distinguished the cited judgments, noting that the Labour Commissioner has the authority to decide on pay parity when there is a disagreement between the Union and the NEERI Management. The court stated, "As there is disagreement between the Union and NEERI Management, the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) is the only Authority where such dispute can be decided."
