Summary
The Supreme Court held that gardeners engaged for years by Ghaziabad Nagar Nigam were its own workmen, not contractor's labour, and that their oral termination in 2005, while conciliation proceedings were pending, breached Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It replaced the High Court's daily-wage re-engagement with reinstatement, continuity of service, 50% back wages and a direction to start regularisation.
Issues
- Whether the workmen were directly employed by the Nagar Nigam or engaged through a contractor.
- Whether terminating the workmen during pending conciliation proceedings, without approval, notice or retrenchment compensation, violated Sections 6E and 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- Whether a ban on fresh recruitment and the decision in Umadevi bar relief to long-serving workmen doing perennial work.
- What relief should follow, and whether the High Court's direction for daily-wage re-engagement was adequate.
Provisions considered
- Section 6E, U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Read as barring an employer from altering service conditions, including by termination, during pending conciliation or adjudication proceedings without prior approval of the authority. Nothing on record showed that approval was sought or granted before the workmen were discontinued while their dispute was pending. (¶¶ 8, 9, 11, 17, 18)
- Section 6N, U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Treated as requiring notice or wages in lieu and retrenchment compensation before retrenchment, whether the worker is labelled regular or temporary. There was no proof of compliance, so the terminations were illegal. (¶¶ 10, 17, 18)
Held
- The employer's plea that the workmen were contractor's labour was unsubstantiated: no contract documents, licences, invoices, tender notices or contractor attendance records were produced. Wages came from the Nigam's Horticulture Department, and the workmen took instructions from its officials, showing direct control and an employer-employee relationship. (¶ 11)
- Section 6E prohibits altering service conditions, including termination, while proceedings are pending unless the authority's approval is first obtained. Discontinuing the workmen without such approval while their regularisation dispute was pending was impermissible and prima facie a deliberate attempt to defeat their claims. (¶¶ 8, 9)
- Retrenchment obligations under Section 6N (notice or wages in lieu, and retrenchment compensation) apply whether the worker is classed as regular or temporary. Termination without these safeguards was illegal. (¶¶ 10, 17)
- Park upkeep and horticulture are perennial municipal functions. A general ban on fresh recruitment cannot be used to deny labour protections to long-serving workmen, and making them do the same work as regular gardeners for inadequate pay was an unfair labour practice contrary to 'equal pay for equal work'. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Umadevi distinguishes illegal from irregular appointments and cannot shield years-long exploitative engagements where the employer has failed to recruit properly. The employer's failure to produce muster rolls despite directions justified an adverse inference about continuous service; the Court drew support from Jaggo v. Union of India. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- The High Court's order of daily-wage re-engagement perpetuated insecurity and gave neither continuity of service nor meaningful back wages. Budgetary and recruitment-rule concerns do not relieve the employer of its statutory obligations. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Result
Workmen's appeals allowed and the Nagar Nigam's appeals dismissed. Terminations declared illegal and quashed; reinstatement within four weeks with continuity of service and consequential benefits; 50% back wages to be paid within three months of reinstatement; a fair regularisation process to begin within six months, without retroactively imposing criteria; no order as to costs.