# H.A.L. Division Korwa v. DY. Chief Labour Commissioner (C) & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 558
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-06
- **Case number:** Service Single No. 1213 of 2005
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/h-a-l-division-korwa-v-dy-chief-labour-commissioner-c-ors-45691
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service/Labour Law - Wages and
conditions of service - The Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central
Rules,
1971:
Rules
25(2)(v)(a),
25(2)(v)(b) - Contract labourers have
right to approach Dy. Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central) u/r 25(2)(v)(b)
and to retrospective adjudication.

The cause of action regarding wages and
conditions of service arises to the Contract
labourers when their wages and other fringe
benefits are determined in license agreement
and not before. Therefore, the right u/r
25(2)(v)(b) cannot be denied to them because
license agreement was in operation. (Para 20)

It is a settled law that all adjudication by a
quasi-judicial or by a Judicial Tribunal is
retrospective in nature, and the rights and
liabilities of the parties are crystallized at the
time of filing of application before the Authority
concerned.
A
determination
made
with
prospective effect would be meaningless for
those contract labourers who had approached
the Authority concerned for a just and fair
adoption of their assignments and conditions of
service. (Para 7, 19)

B. Parity can be given by comparing the
industries engaged in same areas of work
-
There
cannot
be
any
other
suitable
comparison other than with the sister concern
of the petitioner, located within the distance of
125 kms. in the same geographical region in
the same State, rather than comparison with
industries engaged in completely different
1 All. H.A.L. Division Korwa Vs. Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (C ) & Ors.
559
areas of work on the basis that they are
situated in the geographical area of the
industry in question. (Para 7, 21)

Petition dismissed.

Precedent followed:

## Text

558 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Committee concerned shall then issue a
formal unconditional recognition order."

38. Regulation 8(10) of Regulations
of 2005 contemplates that till such
unconditional recognition is not granted,
no admission shall be given. Regulation
8(10) reads as under:

"An
institution
shall
make
admission
only
after
it
obtains
unconditional letter of recognition from
the Regional Committee concerned, and
affiliation from the examining body."

39. Admittedly the validity of the
aforesaid
Regulation
was
neither
challenged before the learned Single Judge
nor before the Special Appellate Court and
hence we hold that the respondent did not
commit any illegality or legal infirmity in
granting conditional recognition to the
appellants under Regulation 7(12) of the
Regulations of 2005 and the recognition
granted by the NCTE by letter dated 26th
May, 2007 was a conditional recognition.

40. In view of the above, we do not
find that the order passed by learned
Single Judge suffers from any illegality or
legal infirmity requiring any interference
by this Court.

41. However, we quash the cost of
Rs.50,000/- awarded by the impugned
order.
The
appeal
is
disposed
of
accordingly.
----------
(2020)1ILR 558

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.01.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Service Single No. 7347 of 2004 alongwith
Service Single No. 1213 of 2005

H.A.L. Division Korwa ...Petitioner
Versus
DY. Chief Labour Commissioner (C) & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
P.K. Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Dipak Seth, C.S. Pandey, Maneesh Kumar
Singh, Navita Sharma, S.P. Tripathi

A. Service/Labour Law - Wages and
conditions of service - The Contract
Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central
Rules,
1971:
Rules
25(2)(v)(a),
25(2)(v)(b) - Contract labourers have
right to approach Dy. Chief Labour
Commissioner (Central) u/r 25(2)(v)(b)
and to retrospective adjudication.

The cause of action regarding wages and
conditions of service arises to the Contract
labourers when their wages and other fringe
benefits are determined in license agreement
and not before. Therefore, the right u/r
25(2)(v)(b) cannot be denied to them because
license agreement was in operation. (Para 20)

It is a settled law that all adjudication by a
quasi-judicial or by a Judicial Tribunal is
retrospective in nature, and the rights and
liabilities of the parties are crystallized at the
time of filing of application before the Authority
concerned.
A
determination
made
with
prospective effect would be meaningless for
those contract labourers who had approached
the Authority concerned for a just and fair
adoption of their assignments and conditions of
service. (Para 7, 19)

B. Parity can be given by comparing the
industries engaged in same areas of work
-
There
cannot
be
any
other
suitable
comparison other than with the sister concern
of the petitioner, located within the distance of
125 kms. in the same geographical region in
the same State, rather than comparison with
industries engaged in completely different
1 All. H.A.L. Division Korwa Vs. Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (C ) & Ors.
559
areas of work on the basis that they are
situated in the geographical area of the
industry in question. (Para 7, 21)

Petition dismissed.

Precedent followed:

1. French Motor Car Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen,
AIR 1963 SCC 1327 (Para 20)

2. Workmen of Orient Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Ms. Orient
Paper Mills Ltd., AIR 1969 SC 976 (Para 20)

Present petition is against order dated
27.07.2004, passed by the Dy. Chief
Labour Commissioner (Central).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

(1) Heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

(2) This petition has been filed by the
petitioner-Hindustan Aeronautics Limited
(HAL), a Central Government Company in
Cooperative
Public
Companies
Act
challenging the order dated 27.07.2004
passed
by
the
Dy.
Chief
Labour
Commissioner (Central), the opposite
party no.1 allowing the application moved
by the opposite party no.2-Korwa Safai
Karamchari Union, HAL, Korwa Mandal,
Amethi, Sultanpur.

(3) The opposite party no.1 has allowed
the application moved by the Contract Safai
Karamchari of the factory premises and
directed them to be given the same wages as
were
admissible
to
unskilled
regular
employees of HAL Unit, Korwa.

(4) Shri Manish Kumar Singh
appears on behalf of the opposite party
no.2 i.e. Safai Karamchari Union relating
to the factory premises only.

(5) It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that
initially the opposite party no.2-Korwa
Safai Karamchari Union, of Sanitation
Contract Labourers engaged in factory
premises of the petitioner at HAL unit,
Korwa, had filed a Writ Petition No.5715
(S/S) of 1996 praying for payment of same
salary to them as paid to regular workers
of the factory at Amethi. This Court by an
order dated 02.04.1997 directed the
opposite party no.2 to approach the Dy.
Chief Labour Commissioner, under Rule
25 of the Rules of 1971, While disposing
of the petition. Instead of approaching the
Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central)
under the Rules of 1971, the opposite party
no.2 filed an application before the Labour
Commissioner U.P. under the U.P. Rules
of 1975. The Labour Commissioner U.P.
determined the wages by its order dated
04.041998 placing the reliance upon the
earlier adjudication with regard to the
Lucknow unit of HAL relating to Contract
Sanitation Labourers therein.

(6)

Against
the
order
dated
04.04.1998, the petitioner filed a Writ
Petition No.2254 (SS) of 1998, taking
several grounds for challenge including a
ground that the order passed by the U.P.
Labour
Commissioner
was
without
jurisdiction. This Court passed a detailed
order wherein it upheld the order passed
by the U.P. Labour Commissioner under
the U.P. Rules of 1975 saying that under
the U.P. Contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition)
Act,
the
appropriate
Government was the State Government of
U.P. as it had issued the license for the
Contractor. The petitioner being aggrieved
against the order passed by this Court on
18.09.2001 in Writ Petition No.2254 (SS)
of 1998, filed a Civil Appeal No.3659 of
2002 which Civil Appeal was allowed by
560 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Supreme Court by its judgment and
order dated 18.07.2002, holding that the
Central Government is the appropriate
Government with respect to the petitioner's
Establishment, and left it open for the
Contract Labourers to approach the Dy.
Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) for
determination of their wages and other
conditions of service under the Central
Rules of 1971.

(7)

The
opposite
party
no.2
thereafter, filed an application under Rule
25 (2) (v) (b) of the Central Rules of 1971,
praying that its members be given the
same wages and other fringe benefits as
were being given to directly recruited
workmen of their Company working in the
HAL Unit at Korwa. The opposite party
no.1 issued notice to the petitioner and on
08.05.2003, the petitioner filed a written
statement in the form of a preliminary
objection, wherein it took the ground that
the opposite party no.1 did not have the
power to enter into such inquiry and
determination
retrospectively,
as
the
Contract Labour Licenses had been issued
a long time ago and the agreement with the
Contractor was already in operation. A
second ground raised with regard to the
maintainability of the application was of
non-joinder of necessary contractors who
had engaged the contract labourers from
1985 till date. It was also specifically
mentioned that the parity cannot be given
to Korwa Mandal Contract Labourers with
Lucknow Unit of HAL as it was situated in
the heart of the City of Lucknow whereas
the Korwa Mandal HAL Unit was situated
in a remote area of District Sultanpur. If at
all parity could be given, it could only be
by comparing the wages and service
conditions of the Industries situated in the
Geographical
area
of
Amethi.
The
petitioner had also filed a chart of wages
and service conditions of workers of
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited and
Indo
Gulf
Fertilizers
Limited
as
exemplars. It was moreover, submitted
that the petitioner's Establishment at
Amethi/Korwa
was
an
exempted
Establishment by specific notification
issued in respect of workers by the
appropriate
Government,
where
the
Contractor
used
to
pay
closure
compensation at end of contract period,
and thus they were better placed than the
Contract labourers of the petitioner's
Establishment in Lucknow.

(8)

The
opposite
party
no.2
submitted a rejoinder reply on 20.12.2003
wherein it reiterated that the Labour
Commissioner, U.P. by its order dated
29.04.1989 had already decided the issue
as to what wages should be paid to
contract labourers engaged in similar
sanitation work in HAL Ltd. Lucknow.
The
order
passed
by
the
Labour
Commissioner, U.P. on 28.04.1989 with
regard to the contract labourers of
Lucknow Division had been upheld by the
High Court and the Special Leave Petition
and Review Petition had been dismissed.

(9) It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
opposite party no.1, did not appreciate the
matter fairly, although the petitioner had
relied upon three judgments of the
Supreme Court to show that the wages and
other conditions of service of the opposite
party no.2 shall only be governed by the
wages and other conditions of service of
the similarly situated workers in Industries
located in the same Geographical region.
The opposite party no.1 also failed to
apply its mind to the objection raised
regarding non-joinder of the necessary
parties,
and
that
no
retrospective
1 All. H.A.L. Division Korwa Vs. Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (C ) & Ors.
561
determination could be made under Rule
25 (2) (v) (b) of the Rules of 1971 by the
opposite party no.1.

(10) It has been submitted that the
opposite
party
no.1
also
failed
to
appreciate that the petitioner was paying
the wages equivalent to the workers of
engineering
Industry
under
State
Government Notification which was much
higher than the wages that were being paid
to similarly situated workers of Industries
situated in the same Geographical area for
example Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited
and Indo Gulf Fertilizers Limited.

(11) It has also been submitted that
the opposite party no.1 failed to appreciate
the distinction between the Rule 25 (2) (v)
(a) and Rule 25 (2) (v) (b) of the Rule of
1971, under Rule 25 (2) (v) (a) Contract
labourers who are discharging the same or
similar duties as workmen functioning
directly under the principal employer were
to be given the same wages and conditions
of service, as such, directly recruited
regular workmen. The opposite party no.2,
on the other hand, had filed an application
under Rule 25 (2) (v) (b) of the 1971
Rules, thereby admitting that they were
not performing the same or similar duties
and functions as regularly recruited
workmen of HAL unit and Korwa,
Amethi. Therefore, a determination had
been asked for, from the opposite party
no.1 by the opposite party no.2.

(12) It has also been submitted that
when the determination of wages and
conditions of service of Lucknow Division
was undertaken by the order dated
28.04.1989, it related to Lucknow Division
alone and the same could not have been
relied upon by the opposite party no.1. A
fresh determination was required by the
opposite party no.1 necessarily implying
independent application of mind to all
relevant considerations.

(13) It has been submitted that in
between the wages of Group-A workmen
directly recruited in the Establishment of
Korwa Unit, Amethi, and the minimum
wages notified under the Minimum Wages
Act by the State of U.P. one Pay scale was
available, that was the scale determined by
the
Engineering
Wage
Board
and,
therefore, the petitioner's Unit at Korwa
fairly relied upon such wages as fixed by
the Engineer Wage Board, and extended
the benefit to the said contract labourers as
opposite party no.2.

(14) Learned counsel for the Korwa
Safai Karamchari Union at HAL Factory
premises at its Korwa Unit, Amethi,
Sultanpur, Shri Manish Kumar Singh, has
pointed out that in the same Industry i.e.
HAL there were several units functioning
at Bangalore, Kanpur, Lucknow and
Amethi. With regard to the Unit at
Lucknow, sanitation workers performed
the same duties as was performed by
sanitation workers at the factory premises
of HAL unit at Amethi, they belonged to
the same Geographical region and the
factories were situated at a distance of
mere 125 kms. from each other. In
identically situated units on same work
being performed, similar wages and
conditions of service to contract labourers
had been given by the opposite party no.1
and the order passed by the opposite party
no.1
dated
27.07.2004
needs
no
interference by this Court.

(15) It has been pointed out that the
Labour Commissioner on 29.04.1989 with
regard to contract labourers working at
Lucknow unit had passed an order that
562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
they be given the same wages and
conditions of service as were given to
unskilled regular workmen of HAL unit at
Lucknow.
Against
such
order
the
petitioner had filed a Writ Petition
No.4353 (SS) of 1989 which was disposed
of on 28.01.1994 by this Court holding
that
the
Engineering
Wage
Board
Notification was not applicable to the
petitioner's Establishment and upheld
determination of wages to be paid to the
contract labourers as fixed by the Labour
Commissioner on 29.04.1989. Against
such order dated 29.04.1989 the petitioner
filed a Special Leave Petition before the
Supreme Court which was dismissed in
liminie. A Review Petition was filed
thereafter, by the petitioner which was also
dismissed by the Supreme Court on
28.09.1994. The determination made with
regard to the Lucknow unit of Sanitation
workers was therefore, rightly relied upon
by the opposite party no.1 in passing the
order impugned.

(16) With regard to the non-joinder
of necessary parties i.e. the Contractors
who were engaged from time to time at
Amethi Unit by the petitioner since 1985
onwards, till the date of filing of the
application
and
adjudication
by
the
opposite party no.1, the statement recorded
of Dy. Manager (Works) on 10.03.2004
filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition,
has been read out by Shri Manish Kumar
Singh. He says that from a bare perusal of
such statement, it is evident that it was
admitted by HAL witnesses themselves
that the Contractor used to pay wages and
extend other fringe benefits to the Contract
labourers only in accordance with the
license agreement signed by the HAL
where the determination was done by the
HAL. The HAL was the principal
employer and under Section 21 of the Act
of 1971, the principal employer alone is
responsible to give fair and just wages to
the contract labourers. The Contractor was
only executing the service conditions that
were fixed by the HAL.

(17) With regard to the retrospective
determination, and the objections raised by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Manish Kumar Singh, has pointed out that
from a perusal of the order impugned, it is
evident that the opposite party no.1 has
extended benefit only with effect from
01.02.2003 i.e. from the month and the
year of submission of the application
before the Authority concerned under the
Rules. There was no necessity for
impleading contractors who had been
engaged by the HAL through license
agreement since 1985.

(18) Learned counsel for the
petitioner in rejoinder has submitted that
there
can
be
no
retrospective
determination i.e. with effect from the date
of the application was filed, as such
determination
as
contemplated
under
Order Rule 25 (2) (v) (b) has to occur
before the license agreement is unsigned
by HAL.

(19) This Court cannot appreciate
this argument, as a determination made
with
prospective
effect
would
be
meaningless for those contract labourers
who
had
approached
the
Authority
concerned for a just and fair adoption of
their assignments and conditions of
service. It is a settled law that all
adjudication by a quasi-judicial or by
Judicial Tribunal is retrospective in nature,
and the rights and liabilities of the parties
are crystallized at the time of filing of
application
before
the
Authority
concerned. If prospective application is
1 All. H.A.L. Division Korwa Vs. Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (C ) & Ors.
563
given to such orders as passed by the
Authority concerned, including the courts,
it would mean that the benefit of the
adjudication would not be available to the
parties before the Court, but to all such
future contract labourers for which license
agreement would be signed in the future
by the petitioner's Establishment.

(20) This Court has carefully perused
the order dated 27.07.2004. The opposite
party no.1 has carefully noted the
arguments raised by the learned counsel
for
the
petitioner-HAL
before
the
Authority
concerned
in
Paragraph-7
onwards and thereafter considered each of
the submissions in the light of the
submissions made by the opposite party
no.2 before it. It has also referred to and
considered the judgements cited by the
learned counsel for the petitioner herein
namely French Motor Car Co. Ltd. V.
The Workmen reported in AIR 1963 SCC
1327, and Workmen of Orient Paper
Mills Ltd. Vs. Ms. Orient Paper Mills Ltd.
reported in AIR 1969 SC 976. The
Authority
has
also
considered
the
difference in language sought to be argued
by the counsel for the HAL in Rule 25 (2)
(v) (a) and 25 (2) (v) (b) of the Rules of
1971, and has observed that if workmen
employed by the contractor performed the
same or similar kind of work as workmen
directly
employed
by
the
Principal
employer of the Establishment, they shall
be entitled to get the same wages and
conditions of service etc. under Rule 25
(2) (v) (a). Determination is required under
Sub Clause (b) in cases where Clause (a)
does not cover the wage rates and
conditions of service of workmen of the
contractor. Such determination occurs
when the grievance occurs, and for a
redressal of grievance a forum is provided
under Rule 25 (2) (v) (b) of the Rules. It is
only when a dispute arises over the rate of
wages and other conditions of service and
an application is made under the Rule, the
Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner has
jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry and
determine the wages. They may be the
same as that of regular directly recruited
workers or may be a different, the right of
the labourers to approach the Dy. Chief
Labour Commissioner (Central) under
Rule 25 (2) (v)(b) cannot be curtailed if a
cause of action arose on the issue of wages
and the conditions of service such cause of
action arises to the Contract labourers
when their wages and other fringe benefits
are determined and spelled out in the
license agreement and not before.

(21) Each of the arguments raised by
the learned counsel for the petitioner HAL
has been dealt with in great detail by the
Authority
concerned
including
the
arguments that no parallel can be drawn with
Lucknow unit of HAL and enquiry should
be made only on Region-cum-Industry basis.
In order to substantiate their arguments, they
had cited three judgments of Hon'ble the
Supreme Court as quoted in para 7.5 of the
said order. The opposite party no.1 has
rightly come to the conclusion that there
cannot be any other suitable comparison
other than with the HAL unit, Lucknow
which is a sister concern of HAL situated at
Amethi located within the distance of only
125 kms. in the same Geographical region in
the same State. There was no justification to
compare
with
industries
engaged
in
completely different areas of work like
BHEL and Indo Gulf Fertilizers. It does not
stand to reason that when the same category
of employees at HAL, Lucknow are being
paid wages of regular employees, why the
such benefit should not be extended to the
employees engaged by the contractor at
Korwa Unit.
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(22) It was moreover, observed by the
opposite party no.1 that when the workmen
engaged on sanitation duty in other units of
HAL like Kanpur, Koraput, Nasik, Hyderabad
and Bangalore are regular workmen, and not
engaged through contractors, and getting the
wages and all other benefits like any other
regular employee.

(23) A detailed determination of
wages to be paid to contract labourers
engaged in sanitation work at Korwa Unit
has been done at the rate of minimum
wages paid to unskilled workers of HAL,
Korwa. Since the contract workers were
already covered by the beneficial Statutory
scheme like Provident Fund, Payment of
Bonus Act, etc. such benefit was continued
to be given. Moreover, the determination
was made with regard to the paid
Holidays, Casual Leave, Earned Leave and
Uniform etc. also in the order impugned.

(24) I have carefully perused the
order passed by the Dy. Chief Labour
Commissioner. The distinction sought to
be drawn by the learned counsel for the
petitioner with HAL Lucknow unit of the
same employer, the petitioner, has not
been such as would lead to different wages
being given to workers at Korwa Unit.
This Court does not find any good ground
to show interference in writ jurisdiction.

(25) This petition is dismissed.

(26) No order as to costs.

Writ Petition No.1213 (SS) of 2005-
This petition was filed by the petitioners,
the Union of Contract Sanitation workers
at Korwa Unit, Amethi, challenging the
order dated 27.07.2004 passed by the
Deputy
Chief
Labour
Commissioner
(Central), praying for enhancement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri
Manish Kumar Singh, has been instructed
by his Client, not to press this petition, in
view of the order passed by this counsel in
Writ Petition No.7347 (SS) of 2004.
----------
(2020)1ILR 564

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ A No. 7885 of 2016

Manoj Kumar Sengar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Amrendra Pratap Singh, Sri Subhendra
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pranab Kumar Ganguli

A. Service - Payment of Salary - Equal
pay
for
equal
work
-
U.P.
State
Agricultural
Universities
Act;
Uttar
Pradesh
Agricultural
and
Technical
Universities Act, 1958: Section 28(r);
Agricultural
Universities
Act
-
An
employee is entitled for parity in pay/
pay scale if he is discharging/performing
similar
functions,
duties
and
responsibilities. (Para 22 & 26)

It is a settled law that similarly situated
employees are entitled for equal pay for equal
work where they are discharging same work,
function and responsibilities. In the present
case, the State Government before bifurcation
of State, granted the benefit of the 5th Pay
Commission to the Lab Technicians but, post
bifurcation the respondent-State is trying to
distinguish between the Lab Technicians of the
two Universities on the basis of experiences
and is trying to create three different slabs in
the said pay scale, which was not there at the