B.S.N.L v. Inder Veer & Ors

ORDER

20.03.2013 C.M.Appln. No. 1257912007 (u/s 17-B of the I.D' Act) This is an application filed under Section l7-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, filcd by the respondent on the premise that the impugned Award directing reinstatement of the respondent has been challenged by the Petitioner and has been interdicted by this Court vide order dated

30.04.2007. The averment of the workman made in para 2 is thaL he is not employed in any establishment after the unlawful termination of his services with effcct from I.9.2002 till date. In reply to the said application, the petitioner has only stated that the respondent is possessed of some land, cattle and tractor. That by itself is not conclusive of the fact that the respondent is drawing incotne which could be said to be derived by gainful employrnent and no proof in this respect has been placed on record. Reliance has been placed by the petitioner on the judgment of the qe Supreme Courl tn North Ettst Kurnstka Road Transport Corporation Vs' M.Nagungoucla AIR 2007 sc g73 appears to be misplaced since it is not aveffed by the petitioner that the respondent is deriving any income' Accordingly, the application is allowed. The petitioner is directed to pay the last drawn wages to the respondent from the date of the Award iill date. I may observe that the impugned Award has been set aside by a detailed judgment rendered today along with other civil writ petitions' 'fhe amount be paid within four weeks. The application stands disposed of. Writ Petition (C) No. 3154/2007 In view of the orders passed today in writ Petition (c) No. 3 l5Ol20O7, this writ petition also stands disposed of. A11 the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. VIPIN SANGHI, J MARCH 2O,2OI3 sl :fJ t, 'irt-. ' t, rr,'qiin ti-vtr1'. J-ll=37, 'r, |lf{ '['[-[E .[]tlG]$ co[Jlt{.]] OlF DTrx-x{I .A1ll P,[EW D]Bi,iFX.lt tr)ato of l)acisiour: 20"03.20X.3 w.n).(C) 3xs0/2007 I],S,N,'1., 'fhrough: VCISLIS A'i"l'Alt SINGII & oR.s. 'fhrough: 1y,1t,((",) Ntt:t, J li0=56/2007 & otlter cortnectel tttuttats C()XtA.Mr IION'I}tr,XI MI{" .XUSTXCE VXPXi\I SANGX]IX ,v[Pll\ SAIEGX{X" .}. (OltA.tr-) l. 'I'lris batch ol'wr:it petitions undei Articic 226'of thc Cor:slitutjori clf lnclia Savc beop prel'er-r'ed by Bhalat Sanchar Nagam l.irnitecL (IISNL) to ;lssaril t6c cor.r.pr-ror't awarci passed by the Central'Govelument Industrial 'l'r-it:r-trtal cltm [,abour Cotlrt II, Rajerrcfu.a Place, Ilajcndra []l-rawan' Ncw I)clhi (cQl'l), in sevcral lefei'ences rnade.in rcspcct of thc respoirclent ?,, 'J,ltp i'ctbrcncc in respect of each of the u'orkman is inot-c or less l .. .[t.onr tlre references and; conseq,-tcrrtly, hhve ' ifir:nLieEIl, 'l'lro san-Ic ISSues arlse i,t)Orn clqall Witli in Xhe comrnon awarcl passed by thc CGIT' As an cxanr'plc' I i. *lri r"crll,ecir;ciug hcrcin bclow thc 'efe'enoe macle in respect'cr" sh. Ba]bir ..... Itesp.ondcnts Mr. Vilclarn Nandlajog, Mr-Aririt Singh, Mr. She.eteslr. I(irauna ancl IVIr. Stis]ril Jalwal, Advocates f I'age I r4l'20 -F q9 Singh,- L5e responclent in W.P.(C.) 1'{o.3 64912007, whicla leads as follor'vs: ',l\4tetlter the action of tlte mattagem.ettt of GILITD, lii|t, !,'ctr.i.cl.abacl in terminaling/disengaging the services oJ Sh-Ilqtbir" Singh So Sh. I(haian Stngh w.e.f 01.09.2002 t'vithout contpbting yvith the provisions of the ID Act, 1947 and non- "oniUrrtrg of teniporailt stattLs on htm in accordanc.e vvith. the 'D)PTS Scheme of september 1993 and thereby non y,egttlarizing hts services in terrus of provistohs of CL(Il&A.) lil, lg\0 emploltecl throttgh sectrity contractors viz. M/s ' I Lixtttcui Senu"i4t Agency, M/s. Ikshav Secttrily Services' M/s' /lrurracl.ha sectn ity services was jttst, fair and legal? If nol, v,hcti relief he is entttled td cmdfrom vvhich date?" ' :i, ,'!'l-rc CGI'| by the irnpr,rgned award has answeled thc i'efetencc. in l'iiveur. of thc wollcrnen by holding ,that the action of thc pctitioner' tleltlagc!]lent in tcnlinating/cliselgaging services of the wolknran without comlrlying with the provisions of Industriai Displrtes Act, 194'i (tlie lrct), ancl iu not con'felring temporary stalus on them in accoldancs..with the !)cpartnrgnt dl'Pcrsonnel 'l'raining (DoPT) Scheme of Septembe-r-1993 and LSercby lrot regr-rlarizing theil scrvices in terms of the provisj'cns of the (.olrr.act Lilbonr (Itegr-rlation ald Abolition) Act, Ig70 (the CLRA z\ct) cplplclyccl tl'rroUgh secr-rrity contractols. namely, Wt: L'uxman Secr-rrity Agerir:y, M/s I(estrav Seculity Ser'vices, M/s. Anur:adha Secui'ity Selvices is 'ot.jrtst ol Jirir or lcgal. 'thc mallagement has been clirected to icinstate all Llio rcsponcleut Worlctnen, Some Of the workman in resi:eci of whom re ler.rlnces \4/e1.e macle hacl not lecl their eviclence and, consec|-tently, no such clireqtielp ftas beeu issued in respect of them. They are not befor-c this Court' ( 'l'hc CGI'I' lrzls also awalcled \ /,g., [, 0l ,Q9,2Q02'

5.0Yo baclcwages to the respondeilt woil<rnan ,!t " 11',!t,( -(,',) Ntts. J !50--56/2.007 & olher conttecteil mrrltet Puge 2 of 20 t tl, Ms. Ilir-bal, learnecl counsel for the petitioner has sr-rbrnitted that the oply tlrlee issues which wele referrecl fol deterrtrination by the CGIT were in rclatiorl xel 't

i) 'fhe Lermiuation/disengagement of the selvices. of the' workman with effect'lrorn 01.09.2002 - whethct thc saille was illegal on account of rion compliance of the piovibions of Act; -ry 4t

ii) Whetherj the non confening of ternpo::ary . worktlan in accordance with DoPT Scheme 1993 was fair just and legal, and; statuJ on thc ,1 oI SeptemDer l. Pug'e 3 o.f 20

iii) 'iVhether JIie non legularization of the services of ltt" Workman in terms of the provisions of the Ci,RA Act - qnfployecl through securiry contractors, 'vvas jr-rst fail and legal. 5, I l.,epipnecl counsel subrnits that the terms of leference dicl hot lefer , flrg, is6ige With .Segarcl tp the contracts betweien the petitioner and fie ,gel'ltt'?lgtof$, Ilamely, thc three service.security agencies mentjclnecl in the lrlt.l"n*, o.[, r"cl.ercnce, being sharn or a .camouflage, fol adjr,rdica'.tion by the C]QI'I', (r, I,carned counsel fol the petitioner submits that in the IISNL there was a pr.acticc of appointing laboul contr-aclors for providin-q. cf secLrrity scrviges. ' she sr-rbmits that such contracts were legal, 'as ther-e was no ,;1'oliit:itio1 4gainst the ernployrnent of contract labor'y for piovision of il",f,(:,) Np't, -1150-56/2007 & ttilryr connecterl 'niltters _5+ 9q seclrr.iry scrvi6s5.- as no notitication under section 10 of the CLI;A,u\ct hacl [rcc' issLtccl by thc Central Government. She submits that eatiier prirrate secllrity agencies - such as those rnentioned in the terms of ,ef.,.ence, lvere 'l , : .also Ljeing erigagecl. I-Iowever, an office rlemolandum dated 0I.02..1999 l*u, isslqcl by thc f)epartmcnt of Public l3nterplises, which was latcr' i16116y7ccl by tlrc Defence Ministry's circuiat' datect 26.04.20C1. l'hey ,: recl,Lri'ocl ilrat all llSNI. eslablishments shonld engage the securit-v-pelsonnel l'rorn thq l)irector (ieneral Resetllement (DGII).sponsor'ed agencies only' 7, Slic subrnits that in the light o[ the afolesaid instn-rctions, IJSM., issr,rccl a tlrcrlolanclum clated 03.04.?002 incorporating thc saicl conclitibl' Ooriseque.Lly, the contracts with pr:ivate secrlrity' agencies rnrhic'h'were not" spollsol-ecl by tlie DGR liad to be discontinued. Learned connsel submits tliat all t5e rcsponclents wcre employecl through the said security agcncies' g, I,ealnccl counsel tbr the petitioner l-ras drawn'the attei:tion of the Ccrr-ry1 to tllc jLrdgmelt of the Divisiol Bench of this Cout-t rn trdesfuat' , see uritJt services Ltd. v, [Jnion oJ India & ors,...,2004II A.D (Delhi) a69' ,l,he petilioler I(eshav .Secur:ity Selvices Ltcl. had sgught to'. assail 'the pr.escription laiel clown by the Dcpartment of Enterprises, as afoiesaid. that o*ly Utltt $p-o. 'sorecl agency be engaged for provicling securitl' services to |'ho pal.ifioncr, g, '1.5o l)ivisiop IJelch rejected the saicl challenge by hciding that it 1,ynli net necessary for the IISNL to aclOpt open .tender system fof plgagqn-rant of 'sccr-rrity services, ancl the petitioners action cf drar'vir-rg o.,fg9ulitY, pgl'Sol'Ulel throurgh a DGR sponsored agency'\'vas neither artlitrari 4a r t. t '{:risf 1!.F,F {rt lY,P,(e) Nal, J Ili-'|6/2007 & o!ftcr connected nlotters Puge <t of 20 .ltol' clisot'irlinatory, and the same was -lreld as lz[ o1'lhe Conslitr;tion of India. U"ing violative of Article

¶10I,qarnecl counsel fol the petitioner has submitidd that a pen-rsal of thc awarc] shows thaL the szttne is plimarily premised on 4 finding that the i corrtragts betWeen the petitioner ancl the security ageircies werb sham and a ,gntnollllagE, slre submits that the said issue dicl not alise for ccnsicleration hQlbr"e tl,rc GGIT - either fronr. the terms of refelence, ol: cvciL fiom the plcaclirrgs ol'lhc parties. she has lefen-ecl to the following extrat;t fiom the -in,1r'gnlcl awarcl to submir that the discussion ancl fincling of the CGI'I:to the ;c t't',eot that thr: contract betWccn the petitioner ancl the secu:ity a'gcncics at'e shrirn zirtcl a carnoullage has swung the dccision of the tribunal in favotl-,:.of tlie rvorkttrart. The relevant extlact in the award t'eads as follows: not -{-q1ilr. Ir?q.3tr 'l ,i.f I became qttite o'bviotts that the management has not fiIed, "o1i1, o.f eviy contract agreem.ent wtth the centractot' and cl.ctcuntents regcu'cling P'a)tment to the contra'ctors' The ),r,orlqnen hat,e .filect attendance sheets to ' shot'v ilteir . presertce. The n,tanctgen)ent ha.s not cleniecl the pltotocopies oJ' ctttenclctnce sheets fi.ted by the worlatten. There is - no inclorsement of clenia1. The m.anagement vvftness has not , shrecl. in his cross exaruination that phqtopopies-ctre noi true colties oJ', the origina.l altenclance sheets. The origi,nal. ct1.len1ld1ce sheets are i.n t.he po;session of the manctgentent. Sct the t'r,orlcnten caTtot be expectecl to fite the sanl'e' The ' 1,1teylcnten hatte.fi,tect attenclance sheet from Jaru'tcffy' 1996 to ,Jqru.nry, I99Bi:. These attenclanbe sheets are admissi'ble iit etticl.ence as the originals are n the possession qi the mqnagenxent. This pioves the fact that the worknen' han''e ,,i,,orkirl in rhe prim'ises of the management cts Security Guards contiru'iou,slltft"om J''"'o'y, 1996 to Jant'nry' l99B' The ease of the tvorlcnten is rhat they were engagecl itt 1994' ly,l',((:,) /\'rrJ, .? | 50-,i6/2007 & rttlter conttecterl 'llutters Puge 5 o.f 70 tu uq t' :," I , 1995, I996, 1997, lgg| ancl they have vvorlcecl contintt'tot'tsly titt 01,09.2002. The chart of the dtu"ation'of t'voflc cf the r)orlqlxen. has been given' The yvorlcnten have cleposecl that they vvorlcecl uncler. the , strpentision ancl control of tl'tle manageruent' Dutlt'lvas ' ,tr,, ignrrl to the vvorlcmen by the Jttnior Engineer of the nta.nagement. It yvas the btn"den of the management to Pt'ove tha.l: the contyactors have tnacle PQyment to the worlcm'eiq". No strch pctper in proof o.f the payment being made bv tlte " conlractot^s to thi t"r'orlcnten has been filed by the 11tc1Ytageryent. Il t,ras fatrther sttbmitted that there vvlts , no cotqtract ilg:regnxent bettveen the contractors and the managenxent. ,fhe y,orlcn,ten were talcen clirectly by the'ma_nagement' The "aenlraalors \4)ere n'tere name lender' They got sonxe ' aottlttt i'ysiott. In cctse of real contract there ls agreement betvveen the ru.anagement ancl the contractor for sttpply of worlon'ett' on certa1, teyms a.ncl conclitions.'VVages are to be paid by the 'contrctclor. EPF is to be cleposited by the contracl:ot'. Th'e v,orlcmen ctre enrolt.ecl in ESIC-The managentent hcts not ,/ilecl ctny paper t'o protte that-EPI? vvas d.edt'tctecl from the "rrogrr oy-ttL yvorlvnen and their nanxes vvere regislered by the contrctctors tmcler the ESIC Scheme' No sttch doc'yttnemt ' has been. fitecl. This proves that there vvas no contt'cLcl in exi.stence ancl tl,te yvorlanen yvorlcecl directly rtnder the control ancl sUryentision of the nxanagement. The vvorlcnxetx caru1ot be u*p"oir4 io file t[tpt of EPF ancl the Registration Card itnder IifuC. These ore iratirial. clocttments for a valid contrcLct but no st'tch clocttment has been filed by the managemeni' The .tttorlqnen ha.ve fiIecl phot'ocopies . of dttendance - shge-ts ve4rifiec{b,theSrib-DivistontalEngineer,sDEan.dth,e Juni.or llngineer ancl these clocttments have not beei clenied ,h),thenlanagemenl.Soitsta.nclsprovedthatthewo'l.Iuyen ,ior,r tvorlcect".front Igg4 on|arcl.s as hcts been specifibd in the : r-. !\tge 6 o.f 20 il/,f,(q) Np:t, J !J.0-56/2007 & olher connected ruutters i I I I t' I ,, I ",j cl,tCrrt of tenlffe of work of the worlcnxen.. It also sta.nds proved lhat /.he nxanagement has been ncalcing payment directly-Th'ere is no contractor. even as nanxe lender. No EPI| has beert cleposi.tecl. The worlctnen. ha.ve not been yegistered uitder . HSIC Scheme. The managentent has comnxitted grcNe ttiolcttion o/'the provis'ions of the ID Act, 1947, Pl"' Aci. and . e\)en ItgC Strch practice iras' been helcl as tmfair laisbt* prcrcli.ce tmder ID Act, I947 '" I l. 'l.earnecl counsel fot the petitionel sllbinits that the statement of cleri.rs tilecl by the respo'cle't wor-kmen is iclenticai. In the said staternc*t of cl0irl, thore"is not a whisper''to st"iggest.that the security contracts enterecl irrlo betWeen the petitiolel ancl the cotrtr'actols wele sham oI camouflage' '['he saiicJ sl"atetnent of claim is rather shor-t ancl cryptic' The relerrant pail o.f flrc samp t'eads as follows: ' ,'l. T'hat l.he Claintant/l\orlcmcrn was employed by th.e nbove ntqn.crgdWgnt since lreb. 1999 and at the relevant_pef.iodwas \4)orktng as a s. Glffirc{ ancl yvas &.awing a monthly wct.ges of |ls. 2650/- 2, That the ytorlc and condtrct of the vvorlcman lvas c1t'Lite I scltisfactor'1t dttring the period of employtnent' ' J, I.hat rhe DEIrIAND NOTICE of claintantA,vorkmctti Inay^ al.so lte reacl as part oJ this claitn statement. The photocopy of ': the l)entcu,tcl Notice is enclosecl. as Annex.A vvith th'is claim : ,$fa'lement' i 4, That: the cforesa.icl ntanagement terntin-atea tJte yr;ygs of |,he a'bol,e nalllecl wor,lcman with effict from 0].09.2C02 by ,, i ve|,bq,I orcler. This is a, case of reJLtsal of &,iy and a'tnol'tnts to ,, ' , ternti.nalton of services and retrenchtnent arid thai loo t'ltithout ! contpliance of the mancla.tory pre-reqtisites of secti'cn 25-N&25-G of'the Inch,tstrial Dispt'ies Act, 1947' It is al'so 't cctse ,y, p,(C) No.g, ,1 150-56/2007 & other connectetl lllotlers Puge 7 oJ'20 I 9I .l t' t' ,.{rfli;rit i4.r-: 1.t'"'., ' I','. ""'-i: uo'l a of Lmfair labotr practice' Aft" termination nxy services the "i7or:irA:,iia Managentent appointecl neyv other employee. In nty plg,r, which is ttiolcrtion of the I'D' Act' 1947'

¶5That the.terntination of services in the instcmt case is t4,rongflil, illegal, agairlst -the principles of natLtral justice' )t;^fi7?i onio casZ of vinclictiveness and also unfatr labom" p,ractice, the ytorlcntan is, thbrefore, entitled to re-instatentent utith' all conseqttential benefits inclwding wages for the iruteryening Period. '"lt'is,'tlterefore, pr:ayecl that the flon'ble cotrt be pleased to -pnri o* r,r,voril in clirecting the Respondent/McyllSynent to re-instate the y,orlcntan in iheir servi6ss Tvith ft'tll ^ba.ck luci'ges, crncl tvith contintdty of services and vvi'th all benefits" '

¶12she submits that a perusal of the demand notice which was alnexed as .{nnexure-A to the stateinent of clairn, also placed on record' sholvs that thE. respondent worlalen clicl irot allege the contrjacts befween the pptitioner and the secur-ity agencies to be sham oI a calno'flage. i

¶13Lealned counsel for the petitioner submits that the CGIT Jrad no jur.isclictiorl to go into the isstre as tc whether or not the contlacts entei'ecl into betWeen the petitioler ancl the sebgrity agencies \'Vere Snam oI a carnotflage, since no sr-rch clispute was raised by th.e responfunts; . no fefQrgnce Was macle by the appropriate govelnlnent in that respect' and; there wel:e no pleaclings macle to that eft-ect by the responclenticlairnants' Slre plaoe$ [eliance on the 'clecision of this Court tn Askok tr{umts & Ors' v' Tlte stqle & ,4,nr. i' 11r,p.(c.) Nos.943 8-42/2004 decidecl on.21.'12.2005, MANU/DEIIB}Tl2Q06,Inthiscase,tlrelearnedSingleJr'rdgeobservedthat no cliSprltE lrad been r:aised abogt the coltract being slnam or 'a'camottflage' \Y,P,(Q,) Nps, J'!50.56/2007 & other connecterl nnttet's Page 8 of20 'l.he clailr cjf .tlre workmen was that they were direct employess of the managglrrent and clid not cla.im that they were ernpioyees of the contractor-. 'I'hg CoLl r'1 sbsslved : ,;[l iS' noyt setl'lecl. law tltat where the wor]crnett claint.th'cit the . conryacl. beh,veeh principle employer and contractor rvcts Sharu a.nil . camottflctge, they hcrye tO ralse an indt'rctricl clisptrte to that ffict and it is indtrstrial adjttdicator who, a/i'er going throttgh the evidence and the ternt's and ioactittons of the conltact ancl other circwnstances h.cLs to , i Cleaide yvhether fhe contrctct bettveen principal employer ancl i the contractor tvas shant and camotrflage"' ' Ill, I1 perra 7 of the judgment, this Court further observecl as follor'vs: '+,ll is obviorls that the yvorlcmen in this case clicl not rcdse . correat disptfte and did not approach; the appr.opriate ' Gotternmen.t tvith the contenttons that the contract was shant ,l ctttcl,cctntotfl.age ot' that the contract labour sygtetn shotii'cl be' ' ftltol.ishecl. ' They got referred ct dispt'tte that they vvel'e 'the etnltloltees of the management and ,vere not bging , regvilarizecl. Th.is claim. was .formcl false. The Labour Cow"t , h.ac{. no ctlterna.tive btd to disntiss the claint. It is settlecL lcna thctt lhe Labottr Cotu"t/Tribrmals cannot travel beyoncl the 1ernts of' reference. If no reference had been rhade lo the Laboru) Coirt for cletermining whether the contract vvas Sham ancl cantozLflage, the Labour Court corilcl not' have entere:cl 'l inlo fhis tistti cmcl clecicl.ecl whether the contract vvas -rhaii't 0ncl camottflage" 15, J-carn.ecl connsei for the petitioner has clrawn the atteniion of the coutt to tlie written statement filed by the petitioner before,the cGIT' It is snbnrltte.l tlrat i1 its writtel statemgtlt,.the petitioner had stated flrat thele \^/AS n61 ;elalionsliip of employer-employee between Jhe pu'fi"t' 'fhe 11t,p,(C,).Ntt:;. '1! 5A-56/2007 & other contrected ntutlets I "i '.' o 9z Prtge 9 of 2() --ltJdl-,-r't!P s3 tesponclenl \ryol'klnan had neither beeL engaged nor recr-uited by the pclilioner ltlanagement and that the responclents were not metnbers of the ricl.Vice, No dppoiuttnent letters have been issued to them, nor lvel:e their scl,vices terminated by the potition.er rnanagernent. Reference hacl also been' r-nacle lo tlre aforesaicl juclgment of the Division Bench in the casc of /(eshnv ,secttrit-1t Seit,ices /.frl (supr-a). It was pleaded by the petitio*e' that the secrrrity pelsonnel providecl by the spcurity agencies a1'e iir no riay conncctecl With the recruitinent procedur:e of the petitionel managetnent' Ralher, thcy are ernployees of the agency uncler t}1e terms of the employment scttlecJ,betweeu the wollcmen and the agency concerned' . 16, I,earpecl counsel for the petitioner has also referlecl to tire affidavit by way of eviclence filed by the petitioner management of .Sh. Netra Pal Sing, AGM, I.,egal wolking in the office of the Genelal Manager, Aclrrf ini-str-arlive Cornplex, Irariclabad, wherein he had Stateci that the wpr{qnrcn were neither employecl by the tnanagement nor were they I tcrniinaiccl/tptrenched and that thele was no employer-employee ielationship belwee' the wor-lanan and the rnanagement. 'It was also afl.rin:ecl that irr vicw of llie,jrrclgrnont in ldeshsv Security Services (sr-rpra), all the BSNL , nsilflf iqhnents engage the wollanan fiorn DGR sponsored agenc)i o.nly. I ,!' 17, l,carned counsel for-the petitioner has pleiced relia-nce on the clqcision of the Sr-lprerne Courl rn Indian Druqs anrl Fksrmsceuticals [-tr[. v. I,1te l,yorlcnmn, Ineli.an Drrigs and.Fharnta.ceuticals I'td., (2007) l. SCC 408, 'l'hc Sulplcrnc Coult aftel referring'to the judgment of the constituttion lrr:rrclr iu The Secretury, Stute of l{arhutskh & Other v' anry Det'i & Others, (2006) 4 SCC 1 has obselved that economic realities oaixlot be lost ': l,y,P, ((',) Nis. I 1 50-56/2007 & olher connecter!'ntutter'' Page 10 oJ'20 ');), '91 ,'i.'r"-' h .i. u Siglrl Ol-, No clourbt, Ar-ticle 41 provicles for the r-ight to u'ork, but this has baen elcliberately kept by the founding fathers of the constitr-rtion' in the .elir.cclive principles and.henc" *ud" unenforceable in view of Aiticle 37 of ' Lhe Conrititntiol, because the founding fathers in theil wisdom realized'that u,hilc it Was their wish that ever:yone shoulCt be given etnplol'ment, the . .grorlncl rjcalities of oltr country clid not pelnit the same' The Suprerne Cor-rrt obset,vecl that Arliclc2I of the constitution cannot be stretcJred so far as to Inean that ever:yone mnst be given a job' The number of availa-ble jobs is liniitecl Ancl hence the Courls must talce a realistic view of the matter and must cxercise self lestraint" l[], OU ttie other hand, Mr. Nandrajog, learnecl cor-tnsel for :the, rcsponclcnl wor*man has subrnittecl that in iL. pr"r"nt case, the petitiot-'*'' liacl tzritecl to leacl any eviclence before the GGIT to establish that the urorlcnan hacl been engagecl through the iontractols. They did not produce rrry cloonrnent ol othel evidence to show that there were ali)i gsnli-acts cntel,ecl into between the petitionel anci the contractors/secttlit'v agencies; lhat lhe secqrity agencies hacl,.in turn, postecl the worlcm an atthe facilities of tlre pctitiopel; tlrat the salaries of the workman have been paict by the oontraetors ancl 1ot by the pe,titioner directly' It was not even disclosed as to grlricli ot'1.he worlcman had been cleployed through which of the contractors' 'Apatrt [l,clnr liliqg the afficiavit. by way of evidence, as aforesaid, hd clocUntcntary cViclence Was placed on recorcl by the petitioler management' l,[e subnrits that the case of the iespondent'worlrrtran was that they vvcle clireqL appointees/employees of the BSNL' 19, L,e3rpecl counsel. for.the respondent sgbmits that the deinand lettels I.V,tt,((:,) N.ot, J 150-.56/2007 & other clnrtecterl nttdlers t l\rge 11 of 20 t, , l'l issnecl by the rgspolclent woricman categolically stated that the petitioler- ,r,onfi, hacl. ctltpointecl me in this instittttion but had not given nle an)) I clance carcl nor even ctny vvctges slip 1'vere 'nppotntntent /zlter nor any attendance card nor '..g*itter1, the qntount totvarcls ESI anct PF vv'ere 'being cleitclrtctecl front my ntOntl,tbt ttalarlt.ft:am. th,e very begtnning btft neither I vvas g'iven ESI ccu'cl or anlt PII tlip, A.ncl on the pretexl: of pension scheme, had got sigtted by nte on hlan.k pqf)er.s, blanlcvot'rchers and blanlcvouchers" - 20, .I.Ie sr-rbmits that in their written statement, the managetlent did not specitrcally clisclose as to by which security agency, each of these workilen ,qt wcr.e clcployccl through. 'fhe said positiol was'not elaborated ci'cn in thoir afticlavil. bY waY of eviclence' , ,21. L.,e4rrled counsel for the respondent has also referred to the ci'oss e XitprirtatiOl of thc rnanagement witness, Sh. Netrapal Singh conductecl on 07,0U.2006. 'fhe management rvitness haci stated that they lracl not filed any lecorci other than the'written staternent and affidavit. ' Lear-ned cotlnsel - --:- ---- - -- sr-rbr-pits l-[at tire Work of security ggalcls is of a pefennial'nature' The pclitioncr recluirecl secr-u:ity gr-talcls at all its installation' The petitioner has rrot clisr;rosccr as to rvhat is the recluisite qr-ralification under the reblr-ritment pulcs [tlr, ihc posts of seculity gttards. Conseqnently, it cannot be said'that the appointment of the respondcnt worlaman was illegal or iileguiar' 22, I.Iayilg hearcl learned co'unsel for the parlies, perursecl'the irnpr-rgned awarcl as wqll as the record reliecl Llpon by the parties, 'considelecl the variotts , elEeisiorl$ citcd bcfbre me ancl the lespective subrnissidns of thc parlies, I atri o1'tlre yieW tha! the imptrgned award cannot be sustained and is liable to be I rJr t ll/,!t,(C,) Ntts, J !10'i6/2007 & other conttectid ntalters Puge I-2 ttf 2b pv gL 5|l€E' r!qrr-' t -'r '-"ll';t'1'"n' .il.,4:'.."...... . fllDrr* 1",rt .rl set aslqe,

¶23I have ah.eacly set.ollt herein above the terms of leference n-Iade to ' Lhe CGI.I', The saicl ter-rns of lefet'ence, which wel:e macle atthe instancb of Llre workriren clo not contain any reference fol examination of the isdue 14r[ethet the contracts betWeen the petitionel and the secr-rrity agencies \'ve[e Sliam Or. eI calltottflage. On the contrary, the terms of reference.themselves clisclose that thc wor-kmen. were employed thlough secr"rrity contlactors ,nau.rqly, M/s, Luxman Seculity Agency, M/s I(eshav Security Sci-vices, lWs' Anqladlia security services. I-Iacl the case of the lespohdent wolkmen being Lltat Xhe contracts between the petitioner and the aforesaid secr-rlity agency wel.e a shall oT a calnouflage, they woulct have gought a specific-refei'ence in l.[al reSfecl ancl, if pof tuacle, they wottld have either sought amenclinent of tho re['eret'lce.aS macle, ol asbailecl the Same. I-Iowever, no sucll steps in this ;egar.cl wel-e laken. Even in their statement of claim, the lespondcnt lare;l<1i1ar,r clid not raise any issue to assail the contracts enterecl jnto betu'ecn Llip patitiottct' aud tlic security agcncies' .:

¶24per-tinently, in the notices of clemancl - which arb also more ot less iclentically Worcled in respect of all the worlcmen, the workrnel hacl statecl iri ,i pilr,a 4; ,l t I ' . .'i ,,4, 'J.,hct yoLt tenn'inatecl nxy services w.e,f 01.09.2000 ' tttil.'hotLl an)) yvritten orcler or vvtthotff any reason attd recrrtit'ecl otther nevv worlcers ctt my place' Only previotts srtpet1visor has' rerttainecl, on being nslced you' told tlaat , cintract hus been given to A'nuradhg Secwrity Servicgs' ' l'otr. have neither give nte any charge sheet nor cmy's.hovv ccr.use nrtlice ,o, his got any inqttiry tlonq nor has 'issued' any "i,rl*tr^:o,on letteruo7 ho, tuttfia my ctccotmts' This type of W/,f,(C,) Nos, 3150-56/2007.& olher connected r':fttte$ Page 13 o.f 20 w 9T '! --r.. - "r-- -r-,t. r -.r.v ,r n.!r- -!i I ,,g1i1tiD) is tvrong, tllegal activity, vindtctive, Lmiusl labour l2rqctiAe ancl anti labotu' policy and side by side yolt' .h.ave openlt'vr.olated Section 25N and 25F of I"D' Act, 1947' As sitch I anl entitled to retnstatement in my service alongwith ,frrtl satary o.f my past and continrtous and brealc up.servi'ce \4) ith othet^ benefits" . (Ernphasis sllpplfed) Z';.5, 'I'here'fot'e, tlte case of the respondent.worlcnen was tha'i they wele ellgageci thr-orlgh seculity agencies. Since no Sllch clispr-rte was raiied or rol-etrecl, the occasion for the petitioner to either plead or.plove,that the cb*tracts were not sham or carrrolrflage did not arise. The failr-ge of the petitioneri to produce the contracts ancl the othel information in relatiou''to these con'tracts coulcl not have iect to the conclusion that the contra-cts dicl not -exist, or they'were sharn ot' camouflage. The fact that they were not sham or canioullage is eviclent fiom the fact that l(eshav Security Serviccs had cvell . ap'roacSocl this Court to assaii the terrnination of their contl'act by the ipetitiqpe; anel lhe irnpositign of the conclition that only DGPI spbnsorecl agencies coglcl be engagecl for ploviclilg secr-rlity ser-vices. ,it is also rro1cwor1-hy that tlie petitioner is a goveriment corporation. The provision of sgcur.ilytserviees involves appointment of responsible and creclible persons, si'qc it irus an element of trust and faith. Security services are availed of by llic petitioner to safegr,rald. ils assets and properlies. For sr"tch e::gagenrent, flrp petiiiot1ql Was contr.acting with securify agencies who vVetc providing pQt-lsQl-lngl piJ their resporisibility. 'fhe petitionet, obviously, cbr-ilcl not have .glgage4 casnal workers on inclivid'al basis foi pqrpose o'[ providing scqurify selvices, . I ulaY refer to the cross examination of the. malagement H,,P,(C) Nps. 3 150-56/2007 & olher connectetl tttftlters r: alio 26, ntrge 1.'l o;f Zt) kg 9f willle:iu sh, Netr-apal Singh. The saicl cross examination, in fact, suppotls ulic base ot' thc petitiorier as ii clearly shows that the case 'of tlrc Iespondent iarqflqn-r411 also Was that 'they wer:e engaged by the petitioner thlough oo;tLyttctQrS, In t'cspol1So :to one question, the answel qirren by lh" managerTle.t Wit*ess is: "I am' not avvare vvhether the vvorlc done by the c.ontrcrctor ytave been accomp:nshecl by the wo.rlvttan in this case(s) or n'ot" ' In 1'espOn$g 1.p anothel query, the answer given' by the witness is: '"/l. is litt{:QfrQQt Iq SL.lggest that there rr atry iripartite agreeruent betuveett the fttanL1geryenl., contrcrctor and. tl'te tvorker". The witness further states "I do tt6t lcttotp trtheth.ef these worlana.n have v'vorlced ttndet" th'e aforesaid conlrq.cloft or not" ' 27, '[.5e aforesaid answers clea1ly sr"rggest that the staud of the . t.c$poncleul Workman Was that thele wefe. contractors elgaged. by the peLitiorrer, and the worlcrnen had pelforped the contracts by rendering their scrvices therennder. It is also pertinent to note that in the entire cross cxaniilation o1'the managegrent witness, not a single suggestion has been give' tb t5e witness that the contracts between the petitioner ancl the secr-u ity agencic$ wcre shatn or camollflage. '/ 28, since no ret'el'ence was made by the appropriate govelninent on the issug cl[.thc valiclity of tlre contracts between the petitioner andthe secr"rrity 'ngoltQie$, the CGI'J.'hacl no jr-rriscliction to examine the salne' .'fhe decision ,in As:hOlf Idu'rflnr(supla) is clearly applicable in the facts of the pi'esent case' .,!'hc appr..oaelr of the CGI'I., in the light of the aforesaid cliscussiolt,. itt clcqlaling that the contracts between the petitioner and the security agencics ' Wete a Sham 01' a qamouflage is cornpletely etroneous' The saicl issue did '.- ll",!t,((,,,) NA]i, -l {50"i4Q007 & olltet connecletl nr|llers 'l 'Fage | 5'bf 20 I AU 'l:" 6 '.* 'ii r.ttf, fl:.r r,. . .r not a.l-ise for consicleration of the CGIT. The non filing of documents or any cviclc'cc irr this respect by the petitioner was clearly on accorlnt of,the fact t"fiat the s4icl issue was not even raised by the respondents. On the contrary, tliey lrad aicLnitted.the position, and it was their own case that they had been 9ngzigecl th rough contractot's Zg, It !q also interesting to note that on the one hand, tlie CGiT.has helcl thr) corttracts to be sham and camouflage, whiie o1 the other hand' r'vhile answct'irtg the rcfelenoe it has been helcl that thc action of the petitioncr 61p;raggpleg! in ter-minating/clisengaging the services of the wolktnan ettrtithottt colnplying with the provisions of ID Act, 1947 ancl non' conferring q/' tempplarlt st5rtus on them in accordance vvith the DOPTS Schente of Septenther 1993 ancl .thereby non regul,ariz:.ing their services in terwas af pr\t,isilnl qf'cl, (j/t&,4) ,4,ct, 1970, entployed through secwrity .cowtrac'tors ,vir.,. M/S .[,wxman Secr.tr:ity Agency, M/s n{eshav Secwri.ty Set'vices, "M/s. Artttrod|tn Secttrity Sertices'is neither iilst nor fair n7t leght' |he I ructnagentent is clirectbcl t'o reinstate all the above nanted vvorlcrtten crppl.1cants ex.cept S/Shri \ulahesh (lD N'o.53/2004), Mtlcesh (ID A:!o.56/2004) crntl Shri Atnar Singh (D No.90/2004) becattse these three v,orlcnten have nrtt.fitecl th"ir fficlavits along vvith 5|ok baclc wages w.e'f 01'09'2002 and ntqlce pct))ment of' the enti,re arrears.vvithin tvvo months from the dctte of pt.t b I icat i on of' the ctl'vctt'cl', (Ernphasis supplied) 30, l'rom the aforesaicl, it'wo'ld be seen that the CGII has itseif observeci that these woricnlen..\'vele employgd through secr:rity contlactors' ltiitrQly,M/S, Lrlxtnan SecU'ity Agency, M/s I(eshav Security Services''IVI/s' Anur,acllra sgcur-ity servicgs. The'question of invoking the pi:ovisions of lf,l',((',) Npl;., I !50-56/2007 & other connected matlets Puge l6 b.f 20 .ry [o r. .r'F i-n tt -" C1.,I{A' Act Wor,rld arise only if the services of the workrnell \i/ere taken 1hrollgh labor-rr contractors. The aforesaicl declalation by the CGIT has embeclcled in it the declaration that the respondent workrnen had been e*gagecl thror-rgh contractors. Thelefore, there is iro merit in the sr-rbrnission o.lr tho r.esponclents t-hat their case rvas that they hacl been directly engaged.by . tlre petitioncr trrallagcmelt or that they hac1, in fact, been elgagecl clirectly by tlic pefitioner maylagement. It was neither their case that thc,rr 6ut1 bccn clilectly engagecl by the petitioner rlanagplnent, nor was it so.established by lliem on tlie l...or.4., Perlinently, they hacl not producecl an-v letters of, appoiltgrept isslrecl by the petitioner appointing them as secnrity gr'rprcls' As. a lpresa_icl, Ihe petitionel is a govemrnent c'orporation and it is absolutely ullacceptable ancl unbelievable that persons to such vital positipirs - which itivolve trust ancl faith, worild be appointed casually withor"rt even issuance oI appointtlent lelters. I l, A pcr.qsal of the impugnecl award shows that. the sairLe prirnarily proceecls o1r the basis that the contracts between the petitionet' and 'the secu.ity agenQies are shdm ancl camouflage. As aforiesaid, thid fincling has' bccn r-enclerecl without jurisdiction. The GGIT was also swayeg by the fact tfiat tfie r-esponden! workrnen wele able to establish that thei' had been Werlcing at flig plemises 9f the petitioner for a.couple of years atleast' Thal, by itself, soulcl not have leac1 to the conclusion that the relalionship of. ernployer.-ernployee existed between the parties. This is for the reason th'at the petitiorrer clocs uot evel1 clispute the fact that the respondcnt rvorkrnen wel.e serrrin.g the petitioner at its facilities. However', the ,cqse. o'f the l:clitioricr-.. is that thby were serving tlu'ough contractors, i e' secr-rrity il'',P,(C,) Ntt.t-3150-56/2007 & olhet conrteclel lllatterc Pnge l7 o.f 20 I I .ffi (, 't agqncies, Rendering of sr-rCh coltract .labour wogld lpt make the .l'Q$1:onclcritb tlfe worlcrnen of the petitioner ,Z, .l'he situafion rnay bc viewbcl fi-orn another angle. l'he. award itself cottttiirts the elates on which these responclenl workrnen had be'en engaged. '.l,lrQ saicl tabr-rlatiol shows that the earliest 'engagements were made on' I\4arcli 1.994., Engagernents wer-e tnacle each year thereaftel riglrt t"rpto the, yeer; 2000, 'Accor:cling to the r-espondents, flrey wefe all disengaged o1 0l ,09,2002, Ilven if the submission of the respondents: that they were clireqtly engageci by the petitioner.as casllal workels wele to be accepted - ltlr thc salcc of argument, theit' engagements rangecl between 8 years to 2 yeirrs. Ilvel if they are treated as casnal wollcers of the petitioner-since their a1:pointrirents were macle irlegularly and not tJgor-rgh the p'o"ss . of rccir-rit6.tclt [:y 1:r;blic erdvediscrnent, they wor-rlcl not have a right to tlre post. Co'sec1'bntly, in any event, the clirection to reinstate the respotrdents was' 'not czillecl ibr ancl catlnot be sustained. 33, I niay refer to the juclgrnent of the Suprerne Court in -nogbir Singla N/s". IItrltunu state .A.griculture Marketing Board & Anotker. (2009) 15 . Se C 2.7., tryher-ein the Sr-qrleme Cor-u't has notecl the shifl in law, parlicularly itr casc of casual workers and those wiro are not regularly ernployecl, it has. bccn hclcl tliat thc lelief of leinstaternent does not automaticall-v follo'uv the . finclirrg thnt l.hg lcrmination is illegal 4nd in breach of section 25Ir of tfre Act' ir ,1,5u aWi',d of compensation has been helcl to be sufficient to meet the ends oj'jurstige, I may emphasiSe here itself that the respondents coulcl not be said 10 be tlre casual einployees/wQrlanan of the petitionel and the above 't; r.eaSoning has been given only as an adclitional reasoning' Hr,!,',(C,) Np.t, J !50-5612007 & other cttt:ttecterl niatters I Page 18.o.f 20 i,r , I 34, Lea_rped counsel for the petitionei points orit that the responclent wclrl(mcn lravc bce.n receiving wages under section 178 of thc Act. lltre .C,.or;r-t has clitectecl payment of the last drawn wages or thE minin:urm wages, , whic!-rcyel is higher, The same has been paicl fi'orn the date of the award " onvlat-rcl$ i,e, b4, 12,2006 and the same continues to be paid even now' These Wages haVe alreacly been paicl for over six years. It is sr-ibmitted that each of tl.rc responclents have received wages ttnder section 178 of the Act tp the lr-rnq,of over Rs.3 lacs (on the ba.sis of the revisecl minimun waqes frotn time Lo time, as tlrey were higher thanthe last drawn wages) dxcept in respect of Llrc lcsponclents in W.P.(C.) Nos.3 15212001, 315312001, -"L5412007 ' . -, ; r; :it56120Q7., ,315912007, 316012007:359612007 and 3650120U7, where the ,,.,*,,11,*-.,,npplioartious unclel section IlR are stitl pending considelaticn' 'Ihese ' tlpltlicertions are being clealt with separately' . ' 35, 'L-he respoficlents, ai aforesaid, have received wages unclel sectiou lTIl i' exccss of lts.3 lacs aftbr dreir terrnination. I may obscrve that thor-rgh white allowing tlrc applicalions of the workman uncler section i7I] of the /\ct, vicle common orcler clated 13.10.2011, ihq Courl hacl lequired the . worlcr..au to give an undert4king to the Qourl that in case the rtrrit petition srjcceecls, they shall.r'efuncl the clifference between the amount oi'last drawu , wages zrncl the rninirnurn wages. The lespondents have beetr r-eceiving wagerJ gncler section 178 at the rninimurn waBes tates pr:evalent fiorn tirne to time, which is higher than the last ch'awn wages clrawn by them The effect ' -Lr,,r -,-^--1 -,L^--^^,':'-^.1 +n'-o'F , i o[.the 41yard being set asicle wor-rlcl be th.at tlr.ey would be reqtiirecl to lefund tlte Seticl clift'erence. I-Iowevel, I atn Uot inclined to direct the sarne' and the .nilicl anoLrnt coulcl well be treatecl as aclequate colnpensation paya'ble to th'ern I ilr,P,(e) Nttlt, J !50"56/2007 & other cottnecteil trttdlers . I'uge 19 o.f 20 ,.! I w in lieu of reinstatemeirt ancl bacl< wages, even if it were to be accepted for;. tlfe Salqe of argttrnent that they were the casual.worlcman of .the petitioler' I-IoweVer, in respect of worlcmen who are found not entitled to wagbs under Sectiolr 17-B of the Act, ito "orrrlr"nsation is payable as they' in any event, are not rVorkmen of the petitioner ancl, consequently, no case of retrenchment is macle out by thern against the petitioner'. 36, Acgorclingly, the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned QorrUr-ror1 aryarcl datecl 04,12.2006 is set asicle, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs. 37, Atl the pencling applications stand clisposed of' --'Y rv{AxtcH ?0, 2013 sI Ly,P,(C,) 'Nos, 3 t 50"56/2007 & olher connected n{ttters I' vxPlhl q".rNcm,.l i i'uge 20 of 20

q2 $-41 * IN THE HIGH COURT + w.P.(c) 3rs412007 B.S.N.L. Through: OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ..... Petitioner Mr. Raj Birbal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate -) versus INDER VBI]R & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vikram Nandrajog, Advocate with Mr. Bijender Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI