Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
An appeal filed by Bharat Heavy Electronic Ltd against judgement of HC refusing to quash the Labor Court’s award, regarding reinstatement of retrenched employees, was heard by the bench of Justices R F Nariman and Vineet Saran.
The contention of BHEL that contractuallabor does not fall within the preview of ‘workmen’ as per the definition in UP Industrial Disputes Act. Which was not accepted by the Labor Court and the award was passed, it also rejected the review petition. When being challenged at HC, it also upheld the decision of Labor Court. While considering the appeal to SC, it observed that ‘concessions on mixed questions of fact and law cannot decide cases as the evidence as a whole has to be weighed and inference drawn therefrom.’
The Bench referred to Swami Krishnand Govindananad v. Managing Director, Oswal Hosiery (Regd.) (2002) 3 SCC 39, which held that as per requirements of Sec 18 of Evidence Act, the statement of the counsel for respondent cannot be accepted as an admission so as to bind respondent.
The bench also pointed out the case of C.M. Arumugam v. S. Rajagopal (1976) 1 SCC 863, which held that, it would be contrary to decide only on the concession and not relying on the direct relationship between the employer and the workmen.
The Bench also discussed the tests for determining whether contract laborer are direct employees.
86540
103860
630
114
59824