Case Title – Kanchanjunga Building Employees Union Vs. Kanchanjunga Flat Owners’ Society & Anr.
Case Number – W.P. (C) 6193/2008
Dated on – 28th March, 2024
Quorum – Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Kanchanjunga Building Employees Union Vs. Kanchanjunga Flat Owner’s Society & Anr., the Kanchanjunga building was constructed in the year 1972 by M/s. Kailash Nath & Associates. The owners of the flat created the Kanchanjunga Flat Owners’ Association in the year 1978 to manage the security, maintenance, and the cleanliness of the building. Later, through the contractors, the workmen were employed from 1988-1996 by the members of the association. The workmen sought for the regularization of the service which led to an industrial dispute that was later referred to the Industrial Tribunal. The regularization of the workmen was denied by the Tribunal in its judgment. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the workmen appealed in the High Court of Delhi, challenging the decision of the Tribunal.
ISSUES
The main issue of the case whirled around whether the workmen were entitled to the regularization?
Whether there was an existence of an employer-employee relationship between the workmen and the association?
Whether the association qualifies as an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Article 226 of the Constitution of India prescribes that every High Court shall have the powers throughout the territories in relation to which it exercised jurisdiction to issue writs, orders, or directions to any person or authority
Section 2(j) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, prescribes the “definition of Industry” as any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the services of the workmen were converted into contractual labour just to strip them of the benefits.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Respondents’ Association was the actual employer, even if they were engaged through the contractors.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the lack of documentation such as the leave application, does not repudiate the employer-employee relationship.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the control of the Association over the workmen signifies an employer-employee relationship.
The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that since the year 1985, the workmen have been working with the association which can be proved by way of documents.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that there is no such employer-employee relationship established between the workmen and the association.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the workmen are the employees of the contractors and not of the association.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the lack of documentary evidences justify the absence of direct employment with the association.
The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the workmen were not directly controlled by the association rather the wages were paid by the contractors.
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Kanchanjunga Building Employees Union Vs. Kanchanjunga Flat Owner’s Society & Anr., analysed the testimonies of the witnesses and the documentary evidence furnished and stated that the Burden of Proof lies on the claimant to establish the relationship between the employer and the employees. The court observed that no conclusive evidence showed any direct employment of the workmen with the association rather the contractors had the control over the workmen and paid waged to them, indicating their employment. The court observed that the activities of the association did not primarily involve the commercial functions to qualify as an industry. Hence, the court in this case, upheld the decision of the Tribunal, determining no illegality or profligacy in the judgment of the Tribunal. The court, thus, dismissed the petition and upheld the impugned order.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana
