Disposed

M/S Wipro Ltd. v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC3 Dec 2021WP(C)/551/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Guwahati High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by M/S Wipro Ltd. regarding proceedings for alleged non-compliance of the Contract Labour Act. The court ordered closure of proceedings subject to the petitioner applying within 15 days to be treated as a Principal Employer.

What did the court decide?

Proceeding initiated vide communication dated 01.07.2019 is liable to be closed subject to the petitioner applying to be treated as a Principal Employer within 15 days.

M/S Wipro Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010020172020

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/551/2020

¶5

M/S WIPRO LTD.

¶6

REP. BY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, NAMELY, MS. ARPITHA R. PRESENTLY, WORKING AS ASSOCIATE CORPORATE COUNSEL LEGAL AND COMPLIANCE, HAVING ITS REGISTREDE OFFICE AT DODDAKANNELLI, SARJAPUR ROAD, BANGALORE-560035, AND OFFICE AT RAJGARH PLAZA, 2 ND FLOOR, RAJGARH ROAD, RAJGARH, GUWAHATI

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP. BY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006

¶9

2:THE STATE COORDINATOR NRC ASSAM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ACHYUT PLAZA 1ST FLOOR BHARALUPAR BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005 KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 3:THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER ULUBARI GUWAHATI-781005 KAMRUP(M) ASSA

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A CHAMUAH

¶11

Page No.# 2/4

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶13

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

¶14

ORDER

¶15

03-12-2021

¶16

Heard Shri C.P. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A. Chamuah, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶17

Also heard Shri R. Dhar, learned State Counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 & 3 whereas the respondent no. 2 is represented by Shri R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel.

¶18

Before going into the issue involved, it would be convenient to place the facts of the case in brief.

¶19

The projected case of the petitioner is that it was engaged by the NRC for design, development and maintenance of the ‘NRC Software Solution’ and for setting up of the ‘NRC Seva Kendras’ in the State of Assam. It was understood from the Minutes of Meeting that the petitioner would be a Contractor and therefore, have to obtain a license under Section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act (herein after referred to as Act).

¶20

By drawing the attention of the said Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the application has to be made in Form-IV which requires the same to be submitted along with Form-V to be issued by the Principal Employer and in the instant case, the NRC was construed to be the Principal Employer. It is the case of the petitioner that despite various request and efforts to have the Form-V from the NRC, the same was not furnished and therefore, the petitioner could not apply for their license.

¶21

In the meantime, the Labour Department had issued a notice dated 13.06.2019 alleging non compliance of the Act in question with regard to nonpayment of notified minimum wages to the Data Entry Executive engaged in the project.

¶22

Page No.# 3/4

¶23

In the reply dated 12.07.2019, to the said show cause notice, the petitioner had shown cause which included the fact of non furnishing of Form-V by the NRC for which the application for license could not be made. It was further informed that the said issue was also within the knowledge of the Department.

¶24

Shri Sharma, the learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the contents of the said reply wherein it has been stated that since Form-V was not furnished by the NRC, the petitioner was willing to be construed as a Principal Employer and therefore, would make an appropriate application in that regard for compliance of the provisions of the Act. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the objective of the Department for compliance of the Act treating the petitioner either with the Principal Employer or the contractor and by delay of the process, grave prejudice is caused to the petitioner which is a reputed company.

¶25

Shri Dhar, learned State Counsel submits that there is no fault in initiating the proceeding vide the notice dated 01.07.2019 as obtaining a licence under the Act is a mandatory provision. The learned State Counsel, however, fairly submits that in the event, an application is made by the petitioner to be treated as a Principal Employer and for compliance of all the provisions of the Act in question, the same would be considered in accordance with law.

¶26

Shri R.K.D. Choudhury, the learned Standing Counsel, NRC submits that since the NRC is not the Principal Employer, there is every justification for not furnishing the Form-V to the petitioner. He however, fairly submits that he will not oppose to the prayer for applying by the petitioner to be treated as the Principal Employer in accordance with the provision of the Act and the Rules.

¶27

Considering the aforesaid facts & circumstances and the broad consensus arrived at in the Bar, this Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings initiated vide the communication dated 01.07.2019 is liable to be closed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall, within a period of 15 days from today make an application to the Labour Deparment, Government of Assam to be treated as a Principal Employer with an undertaking to comply with all

¶28

Page No.# 4/4

¶29

necessary formalities under the Act and Rules. In the event of such application is made, the same shall be processed and finalized expeditiously so that the necessary permission and other formalities as required under the Act be granted to the petitioner for smooth functioning. It is needless to mention that the proceedings which included alleged violation of the Act as initiated vide the communication dated 01.07.2019 shall not be proceeded any further.

¶30

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Comparing Assistant

M/S Wipro Ltd. v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Wipro Ltd. v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumita Kumari Sharma Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Dipumoni Das and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Urmila Tanti @ Urmila Sing Tanti Vs the State of Assam

Suleman Hassa Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Manik Patra Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Ranjuman Ara Begum Vs Rathindra Bhuyan and 2 Ors.