Contractor-Supplied Workers Keep ₹10,000 Interim Benefit As Gujarat HC Rejects Kalpataru’s Challenge Before Employment Status Is Decided

The petitioner company disputed that workers represented by respondent Union were its employees, asserting that they were employed by contractors.

In the pending industrial reference, the Tribunal had earlier directed that the question whether the contract-labour arrangement was sham or genuine be addressed first.

The Union then sought interim wage benefits, including parity with workers covered by a settlement dated 12 March 2024 under Section 2(p) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Tribunal partly allowed the application and directed payment of ₹10,000 from 1 April 2023.

The company challenged that interim order under Articles 226 and 227, contending that it pre-judged the employment relationship and disregarded the direction to decide the contract issue first.

Articles 226 and 227 confer supervisory jurisdiction, not a general appellate power; interference with an interlocutory order is warranted where serious legal infirmity is shown.

Under Arun Kumar v. Union of India, a jurisdictional fact must exist before an authority may exercise jurisdiction, while an error on an adjudicatory fact does not itself negate jurisdiction.

The Court also referred to Dena Bank v. D.V. Kundadia on the general restraint against writ interference with interim labour orders, while recognising that intervention remains possible for serious legal infirmities.

Under State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, a claimant bears the burden of establishing parity in duties and responsibilities to invoke “equal pay for equal work”.

The Court further relied on ONGC Ltd. v. President, Oil Field Employees Association concerning contract workers’ wage-parity claims, and D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration, which cautions against procedural delay in industrial adjudication and discourages excessive interference at interlocutory stages.

The Court acknowledged that the Tribunal ought to have followed the earlier direction to decide the contract-status issue first.

However, it considered that the Tribunal had relied on wage records and a comparison chart showing disparities between the Union’s members and other workers, and had sought to balance the parties’ interests without finally determining the pending reference.

The material was considered sufficient, at the interim stage, to support the Tribunal’s view that the workers had made out a parity claim.

Given the interlocutory nature of the order, the continuing opportunity to lead evidence and contest the merits in the main reference, and the limited scope of Article 227, the Court found no basis for interference.

The interim relief stood vacated; following an oral request by the company, the judgment itself was stayed for four weeks to permit recourse to a higher forum.