# Greater Noida Industrial Development Auth v. Hem Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 646
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-16
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 38900 of 2018
- **Bench:** Chandra Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/greater-noida-industrial-development-auth-v-hem-singh-ors-51078
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

(A) Industrial Law - Regularization of
Workmen's Services - Section 2-A, 6E(2)(b), 6-F, 6-H (1) - U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 3, Greater
Noida
Service
Regulations,
1993
-
Determination
of
master-servant
relationship and applicability of industrial
law
principles
for
regularization
of
workmen employed in permanent nature
of work - Industrial Tribunal has the
jurisdiction to order regularization of
employees if evidence suggests unfair
labor
practices,
including
denial
of
benefits for permanent work despite longterm employment.(Para -14,15,16)

Respondent-workmen employed by Greater
Noida Industrial Development Authority -
claimed regularization - alleging continuous
work in permanent roles - Tribunal ruled in
favor of regularization - with all services
benefits - citing unfair labor practices by
the Authority - Authority contested the lack
of a direct employment relationship. (Paras
3-15)

HELD: - No illegality in the award of the labour
court for regularization of the services of the
workmen. No interference required. Recovery
certificate issued to pay workmen's dues valid.
Court directed Collector to recover amount and
pay it to workmen within 3 months, starting
from January 4, 2024.(Para -22 to 26)

Petitions dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:
10 All. Greater Noida Industrial Development Auth. Vs. Hem Singh & Ors.
647

## Text

_Characters 0–39,288 of 57,510. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39288 for what follows._

646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution
Division-I, Bareilly in her favour.

21. In the circumscribes, this writ
petition succeeds and is allowed. A
mandamus is issued to the Chief Treasury
Officer, District Bareilly, the District
Magistrate, Bareilly and the Executive
Engineer, Electricity Distribution DivisionI, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.,
Bareilly to ensure amongst themselves
payment of the petitioner's family pension
together with arrears within a period of one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this udgment. If arrears of pension are not
paid within a month, the petitioner will be
entitled to 6% per annum interest simple
for the period of delay. A mandamus shall
also issue commanding all the said
respondents to the effect that current family
pension shall be immediately released in
the petitioner's favour and paid to her
regularly hereafter in the same manner as
any other recipient of family pension.

22. There shall be no order as to
costs.

23. Let a copy of this judgment be
communicated to the Principal Secretary,
Government of U.P., Lucknow, the District
Magistrate, Bareilly, the Chief Treasury
Officer,
Bareilly
and
the
Executive
Engineer,
Electricity
Distribution
Division-I, Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitaran
Nigam Ltd., Bareilly by the Registrar
(Compliance).
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 646
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
Writ -C No. 38900 of 2018
Along with other connected cases

Greater Noida Industrial Development
Auth. ...Petitioner
Versus
Hem Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. M.C. Chaturvedi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Aditya Bhushan
Singhal & Sri Vineet Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mr. Gopal Narain & Sri Akash Pandey

(A) Industrial Law - Regularization of
Workmen's Services - Section 2-A, 6E(2)(b), 6-F, 6-H (1) - U.P. Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 3, Greater
Noida
Service
Regulations,
1993
-
Determination
of
master-servant
relationship and applicability of industrial
law
principles
for
regularization
of
workmen employed in permanent nature
of work - Industrial Tribunal has the
jurisdiction to order regularization of
employees if evidence suggests unfair
labor
practices,
including
denial
of
benefits for permanent work despite longterm employment.(Para -14,15,16)

Respondent-workmen employed by Greater
Noida Industrial Development Authority -
claimed regularization - alleging continuous
work in permanent roles - Tribunal ruled in
favor of regularization - with all services
benefits - citing unfair labor practices by
the Authority - Authority contested the lack
of a direct employment relationship. (Paras
3-15)

HELD: - No illegality in the award of the labour
court for regularization of the services of the
workmen. No interference required. Recovery
certificate issued to pay workmen's dues valid.
Court directed Collector to recover amount and
pay it to workmen within 3 months, starting
from January 4, 2024.(Para -22 to 26)

Petitions dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:
10 All. Greater Noida Industrial Development Auth. Vs. Hem Singh & Ors.
647
1. ONGC EMS Vs The Exe. Director Basin
Manager, ONGC (India) Ltd., 2020 0 Supreme
(SC) 613
2. ONGC Vs Krishan Gopal & ors., 2020 0
Supreme (SC) 120
3. Workmen of Nilgiri Coop Vs St. of T.N. & ors.,
2004 (3) SCC 514
4. BSNL Vs Bhurumal, 2014 (7) SCC 177
5. Raj. St. Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. Vs St. of
Raj. & ors., 2004 (6) SCC 504
6. M.C.F. Vs Sri Niwas, 2004 (8) SCC 195
7. The Superintending Engineer Vs M. Natesan
etc., 2019 (6) SCC 448
8. M/s Triveni Engineering Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2024 (1) ADJ 515
9. O.N.G.C. Vs Krishan Gopal & ors., 2020 SCC
Online (SC) 150
10. U.O.I. & Ors. Vs Ilmo Devi & anr., 2021 SCC
Online (SC) 899
11. Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar & ors. Vs
The St. of Maha. & ors., 2023 Live Law (SC) 801
12. Gopal Krishna Indley Vs 5th Addl. D.J.,
Kanpur & ors., 1981 AIR Alld 300
13. U.P. St. R.T.C. Vs The St. Transport
Appellate (Tribunal), U.P., Lucknow & ors., 1977
AIR Alld 1
14. Gopal Vs BSNL Ltd., 2014 (213) DLT 325
15. R.M. Yellati Vs Asst. Exe. Engineer, (2006) 1
SCC 106
16. Jaipur Zila Sahkari Bhoomi Vikash Bank Ltd.
Vs Shri Ram Gopal Sharma & Ors., 2002 (92)
FLR 667
17. M/S Western India Match Co. Ltd. Vs The
Western India Match Co. Workers Union & ors.,
1970 (1) SCC 225
18. Chief Conservator of Forests & anr. Vs
Jagannath Maruti Kondhare & ors., (1996) 2
SCC 293
19. The B.B.I. Ltd. Vs Delhi Vs The Employees
of the Bharat Bank, Ltd., Delhi, AIR 1950
Supreme Court 188
20. M/s Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs Ram Ujagar &
Ors., 1964 0 AIR (SC) 355
21. Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs Brajrajnagar Coal
Mines Workers' Union, 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 224
22. SAIL & Ors. Vs National Union Waterfront
Workers & ors.,
23. Pradip Chandra Parija & ors. Vs Pramod
Chandra Patnaik & ors., (2002) 1 SCC 1
24. FCI Vs Gen. Secy. FCI India Employees Union &
ors., 2019 (160) FLR 233
25. ONGC Ltd. Vs Petroleum Coal Labour Union &
ors., 2015 (146) FLR 443
26. Nagar Mahapalika Gorakhpur Vs Labour Court,
Gorakhpur, 1996 2 LBESR 776
27. I.C.I. (India) Limited (Formerly I.E.L. Ltd.),
Fertilizer Division, Panki, Kanpur Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., 2012 (133) FLR 976
28. M/s. U.P. St. Road Transport Corporation, Jhansi
& anr. Vs Ramji Naik & anr., 2007 (115) FLR 371
29. U.P. St. Electricity Board Vs P.O., Labour Court,
FLR 1996 74 2600
30. The St. of U.P. Vs Ram Chandra Trivedi, AIR
1976 Supreme Court 2547
31. Mattulal Vs Radhe Lal, AIR 1974 Supreme Court
1596

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar Rai, J.)

1. Heard Mr. M.C. Chaturvedi,
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
Vineet Pandey and Mr. Aditya Bhushan
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Singhal, Advocates for the PetitionerAuthority/
Respondent-Authority,
Sri
Gopal Narain, Advocate assisted by Sri
Akash Pandey, Advocate for RespondentsWorkmen / Petitioners-Workmen and the
learned standing counsel for the staterespondents in all the writ petitions.

2. Since common issues are
involved in all the writ petitions, hence all
the writ petitions are clubbed and heard
together and are being decided by a
common order and Writ Petition No.38900
of 2018 shall be treated as a leading
petition.

3. Brief facts of the case are that
U.P. Industrial Area Development Act,
1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of
1976") came into force on 1.4.1976 and
Petitioner-Greater
Noida
Industrial
Development
Authority
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
the
"GNIDA")
was
constituted under Section 3 of the Act of
1976. The services of the employees of the
GNIDA are governed by the provisions of
Greater Noida Service Regulations, 1993.
Respondent nos. 2 to 6, as elected
representatives of workmen of petitioner,
moved an application under Section 2-A of
the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
(hereinafter referred to As the "Act of
1947")
before
Conciliation
Officer/Assistant Labour Commissioner on
17.4.1998, stating that workmen had
continuously worked in the petitionerauthority but their services have not been
regularized. The aforementioned case was
registered as C.B. No. 17/1998 and C.B.
No.1/2002.
The
Assistant
Labour
Commissioner, Ghaziabad issued notice in
the conciliation proceeding wherein the
petitioner-authority filed objection, stating
that workmen are not employees of the
petitioner-authority,
accordingly,
conciliation proceeding was failed and
matter
was
referred
to
the
State
Government. The State Government vide
letter / orders dated 31.1.2000 & 14.9.2007
referred the dispute for adjudication to the
Industrial Tribunal, Meerut which were
registered as Adjudication Case Nos.6 of
2000 & 4 of 2007 wherein the Labour
Court issued notice to the petitionerauthority as well as the workmen for
adjudication of the industrial dispute. The
petitioner
as
well
as
respondentworkmen/union
filed
their
written
statement
in
the
aforementioned
adjudication case. Both the parties filed
their rejoinder to the written statements
filed by the respective parties. The
respondent-workmen/union also filed case
under Section 6-F of the Act of 1947 which
was registered as Misc Case Nos. 15 of
2004 to 27 of 2004 and 45 of 2005 to 47 of
2005. An application dated 26.11.2011 was
also
filed
in
the
aforementioned
Adjudication
Case
No.6/2000
for
consolidating the aforementioned misc.
cases with Adjudication Case No.6/2000.
Both the parties adduced oral evidence in
support of their cases. On the application
83-D of the respondent- workmen/ union
for consolidating the Adjudication Case
No.6/2000 (which was filed with regard to
129 workmen) and Adjudication Case
No.4/2007 (which was filed with regard to
111 workmen) was allowed by Industrial
Tribunal/respondent no.6 vide order dated
7.10.2016.
Respondent
no.6/Industrial
Tribunal vide award dated 29.5.2018 as
published on 4.9.2018 allowed the claim of
respondent-workmen,
directing
the
petitioner-authority
to
regularize
the
services of the respondent-workmen from
the date of reference order and all
consequential benefit in Adjudication Case
No.6/2000
and
Adjudication
Case
10 All. Greater Noida Industrial Development Auth. Vs. Hem Singh & Ors.
649
No.4/2007. Hence, Writ Petition No.38900
of 2018 for the following relief:-

"Issue
writ,
order
or
direction
in
the
nature
of
certiorari, quashing the award
passed in Adjudication Case
(Abhinirnay Vivad) No.6 of 2000
notified on the notice board of
respondent
no.6
on
4.9.2018
(award dated 29.5.2018 published
by
the
order
of
the
State
Government No.512 on 9.8.2018)
(Annexure No.1)."
Writ Petition No.38893 of
2018 has been filed for the
following relief:-

"Issue
writ,
order
or
direction
in
the
nature
of
certiorari, quashing the award
passed in Adjudication Case
(Abhinirnay Vivad) No.4 of 2007
notified on the notice board of
respondent
no.1
on
4.9.2018
(award dated 29.5.2018 published
by
the
order
of
the
State
Government No.512 on 9.8.2018)
(Annexure No.1)."

4. Sixteen Misc. Cases filed by
sixteen workmen (Misc. Nos.15/2004 to
27/2004 and 47/2005 to 49/2005) were heard
together and allowed vide award/order dated
27.5.2018 as published on 13.7.2018, holding
that services of workmen shall not be treated
as terminated w.e.f. 6.2.2003 and they shall
be treated in service with all service benefit,
hence, 16 writ petitions were filed by
petitioner-authority for quashing the order
dated 27.5.2018/13.7.2018 passed in 16 misc.
cases.

5. In the absence of any interim
order in the writ petitions filed by the
Petitioner-Authority, respondent-workmen
- Kamgar Union initiated proceeding under
Section 6(H)(1) of the Act of 1947, wherein
a recovery certificate dated 4.1.2024 has
been issued for recovery of the amount in
question. However, no recovery has been
effected by the respondent concerned,
hence,
respondent-workmen-Kamgar
Union filed Writ C Nos. 8474 & 8454, both
of 2024 for the following relief:-

"Issue a writ, order or
direction
in
the
nature
of
mandamus,
commanding
the
respondent no.2 to recovery the
amount
of
the
recovery
certificate dated 4.1.2024 and
sent
to
the
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner".

6. This Court vide order dated
20.12.2018 directed the learned counsel for
respondent to file counter affidavit but no
interim order was granted in the instant writ
petition. In pursuance of the order dated
20.12.2018,
affidavits
are
exchanged
between the parties.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioner-Authority submitted that there
was no master-servant relationship between
the petitioner-authority and the respondent-
alleged workmen, as such, the respondentworkmen cannot raise industrial dispute.
He further submitted that there is no
document regarding appointment of the
respondent-
alleged
workmen
in
the
petitioner-authority, as such, the respondent
no.6/ Industrial Tribunal cannot order for
regularization of the services of the
respondent- alleged workmen along with
other service benefits. He further submitted
that workmen had worked through different
contractor on different job and the
contractors have not been impleaded before
650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Industrial Tribunal, as such, no relief
can be granted in favour of respondentalleged
workmen
by
the
Industrial
Tribunal. He further submitted that the
representatives of the workmen cannot
contest the matter before the Industrial
Tribunal as they were never elected as
representative of alleged workmen and no
proof of authorization was placed on record
before the Industrial Tribunal by the
representative of the alleged workmen. He
further submitted that respondent- alleged
workmen has not performed any permanent
nature of work, as such, the order of
regularization passed by the Industrial
Tribunal
is
without
jurisdiction.
He
submitted that there is no vacant post of
permanent
nature
in
the
petitionerauthority,
as
such,
the
order
of
regularization passed by the Industrial
Tribunal is without jurisdiction. He further
submitted that 129 gardeners whose list has
been
annexed
in
Adjudication
Case
No.6/2000 and 111 gardeners / Safar
Karamchari whose list has been annexed in
Adjudication Case No.4/2007 were never
appointed by the petitioner-authority and
they have not even worked continuously
for more than 240 days in a calendar year,
as such, no relief can be granted in favour
of respondent- alleged workmen by the
Industrial Tribunal. He further submitted
that the impugned award passed by
respondent
no.6/Industrial
Tribunal
is
totally perverse and cannot be sustained in
the eye of law. He further placed the
written
statement
of
the
petitionerauthority, respondent-alleged workmen as
well as the evidence adduced by both the
parties in order to demonstrate that there
was no direct master-servant relationship
between the petitioner-authority and the
respondent- alleged workmen. He further
placed
reliance
upon
the
following
judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court, of this
High Court and that of the Delhi High
Court in support of his argument:-

"1. 2020 0 Supreme (SC)
613, ONGC Employees Mazdoor
Sabha vs. The Executive Director
Basin Manager, Oil and Natural
Gas Corporation (India) Ltd.
2. 2020 0 Supreme (SC)
120,
Oil
and
Natural
Gas
Corporation vs. Krishan Gopal
and Others.
3. 2004 (3) SCC 514,
Workmen of Nilgiri Coop vs.
State of Tamilnadu and Others.
4. 2014 (7) SCC 177,
BSNL vs. Bhurumal.
5. 2004 (6) SCC 504,
Rajasthan State Ganganagar S.
Mills Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan
and Others.
6. 2004 (8) SCC 195,
Municipal
Corporation
Faridabad vs. Sri Niwas.
7. 2019 (6) SCC 448, The
Superintending Engineer vs. M.
Natesan etc.
8. 2024 (1) ADJ 515, M/s
Triveni Engineering vs. State of
U.P. and Others.
9. 2020 SCC Online (SC)
150,
Oil
and
Natural
Gas
Corporation vs. Krishan Gopal
and
Others.
10. 2021 SCC Online (SC)
899, Union of India and Others
vs. Ilmo Devi and Another.
11. 2023 Live Law (SC)
801,
Ganesh
Digamber
Jambhrunkar and Others vs. The
State
of
Maharashtra
and
Others.
12. 1981 AIR Allahabad
300, Gopal Krishna Indley vs. 5th
10 All. Greater Noida Industrial Development Auth. Vs. Hem Singh & Ors.
651
Addl. District Judge, Kanpur and
Others.
13. 1977 AIR Allahabad 1,
U.P.
State
Road
Transport
Corporation
vs.
The
State
Transport Appellate (Tribunal),
U.P., Lucknow and Others.
14. 2014 (213) DLT 325,
Gopal vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Ltd."

8. On the other hand, Sri Gopal
Narain, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-workmen/Union submitted that
respondent no.6-Industrial Tribunal after
considering the evidence adduced by the
parties as well as the ratio of law laid down
by Hon'ble Apex Court, has passed the
impugned award for regularization of the
services of the workmen. He further
submitted that the petitioner-authority has
failed to prove that workmen have not
worked in the petitioner-authority. He
further submitted that proper opportunity
was afforded to the petitioner-authority to
lead evidence in support of their cases. He
submitted that the petitioner-authority has
never taken the plea of continuous working
of the workmen before the Industrial
Tribunal, hence, they cannot be permitted
to raise such plea for the first time in the
writ petition. He further submitted that
claim of the workmen for regularization
was pending, as such, according to the
provisions contained under Section 6E(2)(b) of the Act of 1947, the petitionerauthority cannot terminate the services of
the workmen. He submitted that proceeding
under Section 6-F of the Act of 1947 was
rightly initiated by the workmen which has
been decided under the impugned award,
holding that termination was illegal with all
service benefits. He further submitted that
petitioner-authority has failed to prove that
workmen were employed by the contractor.
He further submitted that finding of fact
has been recorded by the Industrial
Tribunal
that
petitioner-authority
had
adopted
the
unfair
labour
practice,
accordingly, there is no illegality in the
impugned award. He further placed the
written statement filed by the petitionerauthority
in
the
aforementioned
adjudication case in order to demonstrate
that respondent-workmen were working in
the petitioner-authority. He placed reliance
upon the following judgments of Hon'ble
Apex Court and that of this High Court in
support of his arguments:-

"1. (2006) 1 Supreme
Court Cases 106, R.M. Yellati vs.
Asst. Executive Engineer.
2. [2002 (92) FLR 667],
Jaipur
Zila
Sahkari
Bhoomi
Vikash Bank Ltd. vs. Shri Ram
Gopal Sharma and Others.
3. 1970 (1) SCC 225, M/S
Western India Match Co. Ltd. vs.
The Western India Match Co.
Workers Union and Others.
4 (1996) 2 SCC 293, Chief
Conservator
of
Forests
and
Another vs. Jagannath Maruti
Kondhare and Others.
5. AIR 1950 Supreme
Court 188, The Bharat Bank
India Limited vs. Delhi vs. The
Employees of the Bharat Bank,
Ltd., Delhi.
6. 1964 0 AIR (SC) 355,
M/s Basti Sugar Mills Ltd. vs.
Ram Ujagar and Others.
7. 2024 0 Supreme (SC)
224,
Mahanadi
Coalfields
Limited vs. Brajrajnagar Coal
Mines Workers' Union.
8.
(2001)
7
Supreme
Court Cases 1, Steel Authority of
India
Ltd.
And
Others
vs.
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
National
Union
Waterfront
Workers and Others.
9. (2002) 1 SCC 1, Pradip
Chandra Parija and Others vs.
Pramod Chandra Patnaik and
Others.
10. 2019 (160) FLR 233,
Food Corporation of India vs.
Gen. Secy. FCI India Employees
Union and Others.
11. 2015 (146) FLR 443,
ONGC Ltd. vs. Petroleum Coal
Labour Union and Others.
12. 1996 2 LBESR 776,
Nagar Mahapalika Gorakhpur
vs. Labour Court, Gorakhpur.
13. 2012 (133) FLR 976,
I.C.I. (India) Limited (Formerly
I.E.L. Ltd.), Fertilizer Division,
Panki, Kanpur vs. State of U.P.
and Others.
14. 2007 (115) FLR 371,
M/s. U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation, Jhansi and Another
vs. Ramji Naik and Another.
15. FLR 1996 74 2600,
U.P. State Electricity Board vs.
P.O., Labour Court.
16. AIR 1976 Supreme
Court 2547, The State of U.P. vs.
Ram Chandra Trivedi.
17. AIR 1974 Supreme
Court 1596, Mattulal vs. Radhe
Lal.

9. I have considered the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.

10. There is no dispute about the
fact that under the impugned award, the
respondent no.6/Industrial Tribunal has
passed the award for regularization of the
services of the workmen with all service
benefits.
11. In order to appreciate the
controversy, involved in the matter, perusal
of Section 2(Z) of the Act of 1947 and Rule
40 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules,
1957 will be relevant which is as under:-

"2(Z)
of
the
U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:-.
"workman" means any
person (including an apprentice)
employed in any industry to do
any manual, unskilled, skilled,
technical, operational, clerical or
supervisory work for hire or
reward, whether the terms of
employment
be
express
or
implied, and for the purposes of
any proceeding under this Act in
relation to an industrial dispute,
includes any such person who has
been dismissed, discharged or
retrenched in connection with, or
as a consequence of, that dispute,
or whose dismissal, discharge or
retrenchment has led to that
dispute, but does not include any
such person-
(I) who is subject to any
Army Act, 1950 or the Air Force
Act,
1950,
or
the
Navy
(Discipline) Act, 1934; or
(ii) who is employed in
the police service or as an officer
or other employee of a prison, or
(iii)
who
is
employed
mainly
in
a
managerial
or
administrative capacity, or
(iv) who, being employed
in a supervisory capacity, draws
wages exceeding five hundred
rupees per mensem or exercises,
either by the nature of the duties
attached to the office or by
reason of the powers vested in
10 All. Greater Noida Industrial Development Auth. Vs. Hem Singh & Ors.
653
him,
functions
mainly
of
a
managerial nature."

Rule
-
40
of
U.P.
Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957:-
"40.
Representation
of
Parties (1) The parties may, in
their discretion, be represented
before a Board, Labour Court or
Tribunal,-
(i) in the case of a
workman subject to the provision
of sub-section (3) of Section 6-I,
by-
(a) an officer of a Union
of which he is member, or
(b)
an
officer
of
a
Federation of Unions to which
the union referred to in clause (a)
above, is affiliated, and
(c) where there is no
union
of
workmen,
any
representative, duly nominated
by the workman who are entitled
to make an application before a
Conciliation Board under any
orders issued by Government, or
any member of the executive, or
other officer;
(ii) in the case of an
employer, by
(a) an officer of a union
or Association of employers of
which the employer is a member,
or
(b)
an
officer
of
a
federation
of
unions
or
associations
of
employers
to
which the union or association
referred to in clause (a) above, is
affiliated, or
(c) by an officer of the
concern, if so authorized in
writing by the employer:
Provided that no officer
of a federation of union shall be
entitled to represent the parties
unless the federation has been
approved
by
the
Labour
Commissioner for this purpose.
(2) A party appearing
through a representative shall be
bound by the acts of that
representative.
(3) An application for
approval of a federation of
unions
for
representing
the
parties before a Board, Labour
Court and Tribunal shall be
made in Form XX to the Labour
Commissioner:
Provided
that
no
federation of unions, shall be
entitled to apply for approval
unless a period of two year has
elapsed since its formation.
(4) On receipt of an
application under sub-rule (3)
above,the Labour Commissioner
may,
after
making
such
enquiries,
as
he
deems
fit,
approve the federation or reject
the
application.
In
case
a
federation is approved its name
shall be notified in the Official
Gazette otherwise the applicant
shall be informed of the position
in
writing
by
the
Labour
Commissioner.
(5)
The
Labour
Commissioner or the Registrar of
the Trade Union, Uttar Pradesh,
may, at any time before or after a
federation has been approved, call
for such information from the
federation as he considers necessary
and the federations shall furnish the
information so called for.
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(6)
Every
approved
federation shall, _
(a) intimate to the Labour
Commissioner
and
to
the
registrar of Trade Unions, Uttar
Pradesh, in Form XXI every
change in the address of its head
office and in the members of the
executive (including its office
bearers)
within
seven
days
thereof; and
(b) submit to the Labour
Commissioner
and
to
the
Registrar of Trade Unions, Uttar
Pradesh by December 31 every
year a list of unions affiliated to it
in Form XXII.
(7)
The
Labour
Commissioner may, at any time
and for reasons to be recorded in
writing, withdraw the approval
granted to a federation under
sub-rule (4) above.
(8) A party aggrieved by
the
order
of
the
Labour
Commissioner under sub-rule (4)
or (7) may within one month
from the date of the receipt of
such order prefer an appeal
before the State Government,
whose decision in the matter shall
be final and binding. ]"

12. The perusal of the industrial
dispute which was referred for adjudication
in adjudication cases are also necessary
which are as under:-

लीदडांग अदभदनर्णय वाद सांख्या 06/2000
औद्योदगक दववाद का दववरर्
क्या सेवायोजक द्वारा सांलग्न सूची में अांदकत अपने
129 श्रदमको को एक वर्ण की अनवरत सेवा करने के पश्चात्
दनयदमत व स्थायी न दकया जाना उदचत तथा वैधादनक है?
यदद नहीं, तो सांबांदधत श्रदमकगर् दकस दहतलाभ और
आनुतोर् पाने के अदधकारी है और अन्य दकस दववरर् के
साथ?
अदभदनर्णय वाद सांख्या 04/2007
औद्योदगक दववाद का दववरर्
" क्या सेवायोजक द्वारा सांलग्न सूची में अांदकत
111 श्रदमको को तीन वर्ों की अनवरत सेवा पूर्ण करने के
उपरान्त दनयदमत व स्थायी न दकया जाना उदचत तथा/अथवा
वैधादनक है? यदद नहीं, तो सांबांदधत श्रदमकगर् क्या
दहतलाभ/उपशम पाने के अदधकारी है, दकस दतदथ से व अन्य
दकन दववरर्ों सदहत?"

13. The perusal of the written
statements filed by the Petitioner-Authority
as well as the Respondent-Workmen will
also be relevant , which are as under:-

Written Statement filed
by the Petitioner- Authority
"Before
Industrial
Tribunal (V) U.P. at Meerut
Adj. Case no. 6/2000
Between
5 Elected representative
i.e.
Development
Authority
Noida.
Matter of Dispute
क्या सेवायोजको द्वारा सांलग्न सूची में
अांदकत 129 श्रदमको की एक वर्ण की अनवरत
सेवा करने के पश्चात दनयदमत न दकया जाना उदचत
तथा वैधादनक है यदद नही तो सम्बदन्धत
श्रदमकगर् दकस दहत लाभ और अनुतोर् पाने के
अदधकारी है और अन्य दकस दववरर् के साथ
Written statement for and
on behalf of the opp. Party
namely Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority, Noida.
Sir,
It
is
respectfully
,
submitted as under:-
1. That Greater Noida
Industrial
Development
Authority Noida ( hereinafter
referred to as the Opp. Party) is a
10 All. Greater Noida Industrial Development Auth. Vs. Hem Singh & Ors.
655
statutically body, entrusted with
development of Greater Noida.
The Main job of the Opp. Party
is to develop the colony, roads
grandens and severage etc. And
for this purpose the opp. Party is
employing a number of contract
labours
through
different
contractors.
2. That 129 persons as
shown to the reference order
never had any master servant
relationship with the opp. Party
and
such
question
of
their
regularization
with
the
opp.
Party does not arise. However,
persons shown in the annexure of
the reference order either worked
through
different
contractors
assingned for the different jobs
which cannot be catergorically
claimed in the absence of records
of the concerned contractors who
has not been made party to the
dispute
before
this
Hon'ble
Tribunal.
3. That, 5 alleged elected
representatives
are
not
competent to raise and represent
the dispute under reference as
they have never been elected and
authorized by concerned 129
persons to raise and represent
teir disputed before this Hon'ble
Tribunal.
4. That no
proof
of
authorization has been filed on
the records of the case in respect
of their competency to raise and
represent
the
dispute
under
reference.
5. That majority of the
workmen of the concern neither
interested in the dispute under
reference nor they have ever
allowed 5 repereesentative to
represent the dispute before this
Hon'ble Court.
6.
That
the
persons
concerned
through
Greated
Noida Mali and Safai Kamgar
Union persons have filed writ
petition
regarding
the
same
dispute i.e. regularization heir
services with the opp. Party
before
Hon'ble
Court
at
Allahabad in writ petition no.
40540/99 in which orders were
passed by the Hon'ble Court
directing the union to apply with
3 following options through order
of the Hon'ble High Court at
Allahabad dated 15.5.01.
1. to raise labour dispute
2. to apply of the service
Tribunal
3. to appraoach state
government
for
abolition
of
contract
labour
under
the
provisions of Regularizatio and
Abolition Act, 1970, and rules
made thereunder.
7. That in pursuance of
the direction of the Hon'ble High
Court the union has filed a C.B.
case with regard to the matter of
dispute which is under reference
before
this
Hon'ble
Court
Tribunal before Shri Ghanshyam
Prakash
Asstt.
Labour
Commissioner Noida which form
the subject matter of C.B. case
no. 01/02 dated 25.01.2002.
8. That it is pertinent to
point out here that orders of the
Hon'ble High Court Allahabad
has been obtained by the union
after
suppressing
the
facts
regarding pendency of the cse
before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9. That no cause of action
ever existed between the parties
as
mentioned
in
the
above
reference order in the absence of
master servant relationship of the
applicants with the opp. Party.
10.
That
the
state
government have not referred the
true nature of dispute before this
Tribunal as existed between the
parties which is with regard to
taking up of these persons in
employment of the opp. Party
after abolition of contract labour
and not for regularization of
their services before this Hon'ble
Court Tribunal.
11. That for the reasons
stated from para 3 to 9 above the
present order of reference is bad
in law.
12. That for the reasons
from para 3 to 10 above, this
learned
Tribunal
has
no
jurisdiction to proceed with the
present
disputes
under
the
present proceeding.
13.
That
without
prejudice to the aforesaid legal
objections, the opp. Party hereby
sunits forllowing facts on the
merit of the above noted case.
14. That 129 persons as
shown in the reference order
never had any master servant
relationship with the opp. Party
and as such question of their
regularization
with
the
opp.
Party does not arise. However
persons shown in the annexure of
the
reference
order
neither
worked
through
different
contractors
assigned
for
the
different jobs which cannot be
categorically
claimed
in
the
absence
of
records
of
the
concerned contractors who has
not been main party to the
dispute
before
this
Hon'ble
Tribunal.
15 That the opp. Party
does not have any work of
permanent nature nor perosns
concerned ever performed any
permanent nature of work with
the opp. Party either directly or
through any contractor.
16. That there is no
vacant post of permanent nature
on which regularization of the
perosons concerned can be made
by the opp. Party.
17. That in the absence of
any master servant relationship
with the opp. Party question of
regularization of the persons
concerned can be considered as
other
senior
candidates
are
available with the opp. Party in
case any vacancy arises with the
opp. Party.
18. The claim of the
applicants has no force of law
and is liable to be rejected with
costs.
Prayer
It is, therefore, prayed
that matter of dispute and legal
objections taken by the opp.
Party may kindly be decided in
favour of opp. Party, rejecting
the claim of the applicants.
For and on behalf of the
opp. Party
sd/-
Rajesh Kumar
(Manager Law)"

Written Statement filed
by the Respondent-Workmen
10 All. Greater Noida Industrial Development Auth. Vs. Hem Singh & Ors.
657
"समक्ष-
पीठासीन
अदधकारी,
औद्योदगक न्यायादधकरर् (5) उ०प्र० मेरठ
अदभदनर्णय दववाद सांख्या 06 सन 2000
मै० ग्रेटर नोएडा औद्योदगक दवकास
प्रादधकरर्
कामदशणयल काम््लेक्स, सेक्टर-20
नोएडा गौतमबुद्धनगर
--- सेवायोजक
बनाम
पॉच चुने गये प्रदतदनदधगर् ---
कमणकार पक्ष
दववरर् मॉगपत्र/यादचका ओर से
श्रदमक/ कमणकार पक्षः
1. यह दक सेवायोजक प्रदतष्ठा उ०प्र०
सरकार का एक उपक्रम है जो यू०पी० अबणन ्
लादनांग एण्ड डेवेलपमेन्ट एक्ट 1973 की धारा 4
के अन्तगणत गदठत दकया गया है तादक अपने क्षेत्र में
आने वाले क्षेत्र को औद्योदगक दवकास की दृदि से
दवकदसत कर उद्योगो को सुदवधायें उपलब्ध करा
सके।
2. यह दक सेवायोजको के द्वारा उक्त
कायण एक सुव्यवदस्थत प्रदक्रया के तहत योजनाबद्ध
तररके से कमणकारों के सहयोग से दकया जाता है।
दजसमें क्षेत्र का सौन्दयणकरर् एवां दवकास भी
सदम्मदलत है। उक्त के अदतररक्त सेवायोजको के
द्वारा वादर्दययक एवां आवासीय भवनों, ्लाटो,
उद्यान, पाकों, सड़को आदद को दनदमणत व
दवकदसक करने का कायण भी सम्पाददत दकया
जाता है और उक्त कायण के दलये सेवायोजको के
द्वारा नागररको से मूकय व शुकक दलया जाता है
और मानव आवश्यकता की पूदतण की जाती है इस
प्रकार से सेवायोजको के द्वारा दकए जाने वाले
दक्रया कलाप उद्योग की पररदध में आवतण होता है।
3. यह दक सेवायोजक प्रदतष्ठान मे
दनयोदजत कमणकार दवदभन्न पद व वगण में दनयोदजत
है दजनकी सेवाए उ०प्र० शासन द्वारा औद्योदगक
दनयोजन (स्थायी आदेश) अदधदनयम 1946 की
व्यवस्थाओ के तहत दनदमणत व रदचत माडल
स्टेण्डांग आडणसण से शादसत होने के साथ साथ अन्य
श्रम कानूनों से शादसत होती है।
4. यह दक इस दलदखत दववरर्
माांगपत्र/ यादचका के साथ सांलग्न "एक" मे
वदर्णत कमणकार सेवायोजक प्रदतष्ठान मे अपने
अपने नाम के समक्ष अांदकत दतदथ से माली के
स्थायी व दनयदमत पद पर अनवरत रूप से कायण
सेवायोजको के दनयन्त्रर्, सुपरदवजन व आदेशो के
तहत करते आ रहे है। सेवायोजको के द्वारा ही
सम्बदन्धत कमणकारों को खाद बीज पौध, औजार व
अन्य दनदेश ददन प्रदतददन ददये जाते है तथा कायण
की मजदूरी भुगतान की जाती है। इस प्रकार से
पक्षों मे सेवक व सेवायोजक का सीध सम्बन्ध है।
5. यह दक सम्बदन्धत कमणकारों के द्वारा
दकये जाने वाले कायण स्थायी व दनयदमत प्रकृदत के
है, इसदलये सेवायोजको के द्वारा सम्बदन्धत
कमणकारों को कायण की प्रकृदत व उत्तरदादयत्व के
अनुसार स्थायी व दनयदमत पद का वेतन व पदनाम
तथा अन्य सुदवधाए दी जानी चादहए थी क्योंदक
उसके दलये सम्बदन्धत कमणकार दवद्यमान अदधकार
रखते है जबदक सेवायोजक माडल एम््लायर में
आवतण होते है दकन्तु सेवायोजको ने माडल
एम््लायर की भूदमका नही दनभाई बदकक इसके
दवपरीत उनके द्वारा अनुदचत व अदवदधक रूप से
कायणरत
कमणकारों
के
साथ
आददकालीन
अराजकतावादी आचरर् करते हुए उन्हे किकारी
व्यवहार व आचरर् करते हुए पद व उत्तरदादयत्व
के अनुरूप वेतन व सुदवधाए न देकर बहुत कम
वेतन देकर उनका शोर्र् दकया जाता रहा है और
दकया गया जबदक सेवायोजको के द्वारा सम्बदन्धत
कमणकारो मे से दकसी को भी कोई पररचयपत्र वेतन
पची, दनयुदक्त पत्र आदद प्रलेख सीधे कायण पर
रखने, कायण लेने व मॉगने के बावजूद नही ददये
गये। जबदक उन्हे सेवायोजको के द्वारा जीदवका की
सुरक्षा भी प्रदान नही की गई है। इस प्रकार से
सेवायोजको के द्वारा दकया गया कृत्य अनुदचत श्रम
व्यवहार मे आवतण होता है। यहॉ यह भी सुसांगत है
दक उ०प्र० शासन के नगर दवकास अनुभाग-4 के
ददनाांक 20.6.1997 के दैदनक वेतन पर कायणरत
कमणकारों को दनयदमत व प्रोन्नत करने का
अदधकार ददया गया है। श्रम न्यायालय व
औद्योदगक न्यायादधकरर् को कायण की उपलब्धता
के आधार पर पद सृदजत करने की अदधकार है।
6. यह दक सम्बदन्धत कमणकारो के द्वारा
सेवायोजको से अपने को कायण व उत्तरदादयत्व के
अनुरूप वेतन व अन्य सुदवधाए अन्य स्थायी
कमणकार के अनुसार ददए जाने का अनुरोध दकया
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
दकन्तु सेवायोजको के द्वारा अपने लाभ के वशीभूत
होकर सम्बदन्धत कमणकारो के द्वारा अपनी
सदभादवक मॉग को पूरा कराने के दलए पॉच
प्रदतदनदध चुने गए और यह दववाद प्रस्तुत दकया
गया है।
7. यह दक सेवायोजक प्रदतष्ठान
न्यूनतम वेतन अदधदनय 1948 की व्यवस्थाओ के
अनुसार "अनुदचत व्यवसाय" मे आता है।
8. यह दक सांदवदा श्रदमक (उन्मूलन एवां
दनयमन) अदधदनयम 1970 मे भी यह व्यवस्था
की गई है दक ऐसे सभी उपक्रम जो दनयदमत व
स्थायी प्रकृदत के है तथा अदधदनयम की धारा
10(2) के खण्डो मे आवतण होते है मे ठेके पर
कमणकार रखकर कायण कराना दनर्ेध होगा और है।
इस आधार पर भी सेवायोजको का कृत्य
अदवदधक होने के कारर् मान्य नही है और दवदधक
रूप से मनमाना व अदवदधक है।
9. यह दक सेवायोजको के द्वारा
सम्बदन्धत कमणकारो को स्थायी व दनयदमत
कमणकारो की भाांदत वेतन व अन्य सुदवधाए न देना
भारतीय सांदवधान के अनुच्छद 21, 23 के
दवपरीत है तथा 38, 39, 41, 42, एवां 47 मे
की गई व्यवस्थाओ जो आज्ञात्मक व दनदेशात्मक
प्रभाव रखते है, के अनुकूल नही है।
10. यह दक सम्बदन्धत कमणकारो के
द्वारा समय समय पर अपनी मॉग के बावत
सेवायोजको तथा अन्य उच्चादधकाररयों से प्राथणना
की गई लेदकन आश्वासन के अदतररक्त उन्हे कुछ
नही ददया गया, इसदलये यह फोरम अपनाया गया
जो न्याय सांगत व उदचत है।
11. यह दक सेवायोजको के द्वारा
सम्बदन्धत कामणकारों की सेवा के बावजूद कम
वेतन व कम सुदवधाए दी जा रही है दजससे वह
अपना जीवन भारतीय सांदवधान के अनुच्छेद 21
की व्यवस्था व भावना के अनुसार व्यतीत नही कर
के गुलामों जैसा जीवन जी रहे है।
अतः माननीय न्यायादधकरर् से अनुरोध
है दक समुदचत सरकार द्वारा सांददभणत सांदभाणददश को
सम्बदन्धत कमणकारों के पक्ष में दनदर्णत कर उन्हें
उनके कायण व उत्तरदादयत्व के अनुसार स्थायी व
दनयदमत दकया जाकर तदानुसार वेतन व अन्य दहत
लाभ उन्हें उस दतदथ से ददये जाए दजस दतदथ से
उनके द्वारा इस बावत मॉग की गई। सम्बदन्धत
कमणकारो के उक्त कायणवाही मे हुए व्यय को भी
सेवायोजको से ददलाया जाए तथा अन्य प्रदतकर
दजसे माननीय न्यायादधकरर् उदचत समझे
सम्बदन्धत कमणकारो को सेवायोजको के दवरूद्ध
ददलाया जाए।
हम पॉच श्रदमको के चुने गए
प्रदतदनदधगर्
प्रमादर्त करते है दक दववरर् मॉगपत्र
की
धारा 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10 का कथन
हमारे ज्ञान मे
तथा धारा 3, 7, 8 व 9, 11 का
कथन दवदध
परामशणधीन हमारे दवश्वास मे सत्य है।
प्रमादर्त
स्थल
मेरठ
ददनाांक
25.02.02
श्रदमको पॉच चुने गये प्रदतदनदध
हेम दसांह
महेश कुमार
रामदकशन
दफरे राम
इन्रपाल
द्वारा-
नरेश कुमार वमाण
(सत्य प्रदतदलदप)"

14. The perusal of the averments
made in the written statements filed by the
petitioner-authority as well as respondentworkmen demonstrate that 129 workmen in
Adjudication Case No.6 of 2000 and 111
workmen in Adjudication Case No.4 of
2007 have worked in the petitionerauthority. The respondent no.6 / Industrial
Tribunal has considered the evidence
adduced by the parties and has recorded
finding of fact that the workmen in
Adjudication Case Nos.6 of 2000 and 4 of
2007 have worked as gardeners and Safar
Karamchari for the last so many years in
the
petitioner-authority
against
the
permanent nature of work, as such, the
workmen are fit to be regularized and
denial of the same will amount to unfair
10 All. Greater Noida Industrial Development Auth. Vs. Hem Singh & Ors.
659
labour practice. The Industrial Tribunal has
also recorded finding of fact that the
petitioner-authority has not pleaded that the
respondent-workmen
were
appointed
through particular contractor. The finding
of fact has also been recorded that
petitioner-authority has failed to produce
the evidence that the nature of work which
were being discharged by the workmen,
were not perennial in nature. The finding of
fact has also been recorded that petitionerauthority has not produced the original
record before the Industrial Tribunal in
order to demonstrate that respondentworkmen have not worked in the petitionerauthority, accordingly, an adverse inference
has been drawn against the petitionerauthority.

15. Considering the entire aspect
of the case, the Industrial Tribunal has
passed the order for regularization of the
services of the workmen in the petitionerauthority from the date of making reference
along with other service benefit. 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.

16. So far as the jurisdiction of the
Industrial
Tribunal
with
respect
to
regularization of the services of the
workmen is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of ONGC Limited vs.
Petroleum Coal Labour Union and
Others (supra) has held that regularization
can be ordered by the Industrial Tribunal,
however, the aforementioned case of
ONGC Ltd. (supra) has been ordered to be
revisited by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oil
and Natural Gas Corporation vs. Krishna
Gopal and Others (supra). Paragraph Nos.
23, 24 & 25 of the Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation (supra) will be relevant for
perusal which is as under:-