Cement maker faced prosecution for not re-employing contract worker
The Labour Commissioner directed prosecution of a private cement company and its Managing Director for alleged breach of a Labour Court award. The award had asked the company to get a new contractor to employ a carpenter engaged through an old contractor. The High Court held there was no violation and quashed the prosecution order.
This page records what the cited court, tribunal and government records say happened. Findings belong to the court or authority that made them; this register adds none of its own. Names of private individuals are withheld unless a naming gate clears them.
How we verify →The prosecution direction dated 18.10.2022 stands quashed and the writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
What happened
The High Court recorded that the case concerned a cement unit and a carpenter engaged through a labour-supply contractor. The old contractor resigned on 24.12.2016 and the worker was asked to join a new contractor, but instead challenged the change before the Labour Court, Satna.
The High Court recorded that the Labour Court directed the company and its manager to direct the new contractor to employ the worker on the same pay and conditions, and the company wrote to the new contractor accordingly. The new contractor then asked the worker to join a grinding unit in West Bengal, which the worker refused.
The High Court recorded that on the worker's application the Labour Commissioner passed the order dated 18.10.2022 directing prosecution of the Managing Director for breach of award under Section 29 for violation of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The High Court held that the company had only to direct the new contractor, which it did, that there was no direct employer-employee relationship, and that there was no violation of Section 18. The Court held the prosecution direction per se illegal and quashed it.
What the record says
“The order dated 18.10.2022 (Annexure P/12) passed by the learned Labour Court taking cognizance in the matter and directing for prosecution of the petitioners is per se illegal. The same is hereby quashed.”
WP-1680-2023, final paragraph — read the full text
A peaceful economic act
A private employer was criminally pursued for a staffing choice about contract labour. No injury, death, unpaid wages owed, child labour or bonded labour was alleged.
What we could not confirm
District is given as Satna on the basis of Labour Court, Satna; the factory town is Maihar (now Maihar district). Exact worker identity and Managing Director name were not relied on for listing.