Workmen hired by independent contractors are also the employees of the company

Workmen hired by independent contractors are also the employees of the company written by Sabareesh Pillay student of School of Law, University of Mumbai Thane Sub-Campus

Hussainbhai, Calicut Vs Alath Factory Thzilali Union, Kozhikode And Others

FACTS:

In this case, workmen were hired by a company through an individual contractor under a contractual basis. They were working in a Rope manufacturing company. The petitioner was the owner of the manufacturing industry. After a few months 29 of the workmen were removed from the factory. When they approached the petitioner regarding this, they were told that they were never the employees of the factory but were only the workmen of the contractor. This became a labor law dispute and these kind of cases were recurring in the courts regarding the employment of workers by the middlemen i.e. the contractors. And these contractors usually don’t fulfill their responsibility to the workmen

ISSUES:

Under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

PETITIONER CONTENTION:

The petitioner contended that all the workmen were hired in a contractual basis and they were not the employees of the factory. The petitioner mentioned that this always has been the case and the workmen were always hired through the middle men who were individual contractors and according to the contract, the employer can fire any workmen at any time. So the contention made by the respondents in not valid. 

RESPONDENT CONTENTION:

The respondents contended that they were denied employment work is done by them contributed heavily to the industry, raw materials for the work were supplied by the management, factory premises and equipment and consequently, the finished product belonged to the management cannot be taken back. The workmen were directly following the orders of the petitioners and the management. So taking all these factors into consideration it was enough evidence that the workmen were the employees and the management was the employer.

COURT OBSERVATION:

The bench of Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer; Justice D.A Desai; Justice O. Chinnapa Reddy said that, 

“the petitioner’s contention would not be disputed in a capitalist economy with fierce market competition and according the Contract Act. But there has been more than a century’s gap between those strict doctrines and today’s social equity-driven industrial jurisprudence, upholding the essence of Preamble to the constitution.”

 The court further said that such decisions cannot be taken spontaneously and it needs a lot of deliberation.

JUDGMEMENT:

The Court gave the judgement that:

 “If the livelihood of the workmen substantially depends on labour designed to produce goods and services for the benefits and satisfaction of a company, the liability cannot be shaken off. Of course, if there is total dissociation in fact between the disowning management and the aggrieved workmen, the employment is, in substance and in real-life terms, by another. The Management’s adventitious connections cannot ripen into real employment.” 

So in conclusion, the court said that the workmen are in fact the employees of the manufacturing company as well and not just the individual contractors and thus the decision was upheld and the leave petition was refused.