M/S.Nlc Tamilnadu Power Ltd v. The Tamilnadu Min Uzhiyar Mathiya Amaippu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.11.2023 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY M/s.NLC Tamilnadu Power Limited, rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, Project at Harbour Estate, Tuticorin-628 004 Having Registered Office at No.135, EVER Periyar High Road, Kilpauk, Chennai - 600 010.
.. Appellant Vs 1.The Tamilnadu Min Uzhiyar Mathiya Amaippu, rep. by its Secretary, No145/1A, Ettaiyapuram Road, Tuticorin-628 002.
2.The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Authority under Rule 25(2)(v)(a)&(b) of CL (R&A) Act, 1970 5th Floor, Shastri Bhawan, Chennai-600 006.
.. Respondents PRAYER: Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 23.6.2021 passed in WMP No.12809 of 2021 in W.P.No.12039 of 2021 by the learned Single Judge.
For the Appellant : Mr.N.Nithianandam For the Respondents : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose for respondent No.1
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) We have heard Mr.N.Nithianandam, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.V.Ajoy Khose, learned counsel for the first respondent.
2. The present appellant has filed W.P.No.12039 of 2021 against the order passed by the authority under Rule 25(2)(v)(a) and (b) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Central Rules, 1971 and the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Chennai.
3. The learned Single Judge, by way of an interim order, directed the appellant to pay Rs.100/- per head/per person from
1.6.2021 to the four categories of employees, over and above what is reflected in paragraph (13) of the affidavit. The same is assailed in the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that the authority (second respondent) has dismissed the claim of the workers under the provisions of Rule 25(2)(v)(a) and (b) of the Rules. Even after dismissing the claim, further order is passed directing the present appellant to pay minimum wages being paid to the contract workers who handle coal anywhere in India, as ordered by the Coal India Limited and also being paid by NLCIL in its Coal Unit at Talabira, Odhisha. Learned counsel submits that the same was not permissible. Once the claim was dismissed, no further order could have been passed by the authority.
5. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the contractor was not made a party. A request was made to make the contractor a party. The claimants are employees of the contractor. In the absence of the contractor, no order could have
been passed against the present appellant. The employees employed through a contractor cannot be treated on par with the other employees of the appellant.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the first respondent also.
7. The appellant pays the daily wages to the claimants herein as under:
Category Existing Wages Rs./Day DA paid w.e.f.
01.04.2021 Rs./Day Total Wages Paid w.e.f.
01.04.2021 Rs./Day Unskilled Semi-skilled Skilled Highly Skilled
8. The present appellant pays daily wages to the other employees as under:
Sl.No.
Category of contract workers NLC India Ltd., Neyveli campus paid as per tripartite settlement (as on 1.1.2020) NLC India Ltd., Odhisha campus paid as per orders of the High Power Committee of Coal India Ltd., (Office order No.CIL/C-58/JBCCI/JC/ VDA/277, dt.
22.10.2020 NTPL, Tuticorin paid as notified by the Ministry of Labour Unskilled 719.20 420/- Semi-skilled 748.20 492/- Skilled 776.20 593/- Highly Skilled 806.00 695/-
9. It would appear that there is a vast disparity in the amount being paid to the contract workers in the establishment of the appellant and the one paid to the present claimants. The learned Single Judge has passed an equitable order subject to the final decision in the writ petition. The discretion has been exercised in a plausible and reasonable manner.
10. The order impugned also would not bring the daily wages paid to the present claimants on par with the daily wages paid to the contract workers in the establishment of the appellant.
11. Considering the fact that the discretion has been exercised in a plausible manner, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The writ appeal, as such, is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, C.M.P.No.10510 of 2021 is closed. (S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 15.11.2023 Index :
Yes/No Yes/No sasi To:
The Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Authority under Rule 25(2)(v)(a)&(b) of CL (R&A) Act, 1970 5th Floor, Shastri Bhawan, Chennai-600 006.
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY,J.
(sasi) 15.11.2023