CGIT Kanpur LCA Order dated -12/08/2026 on 12 August 2026

1. 1. At the outset it is objected that the alleged application is legally not entertainable /maintainable as it has been sworn by only one applicant namely Shri Lal Bahadur on behalf of nine other individuals. No authorization whatsoever has been enclosed with the application to prove that Shri Lal Bahadur has been authorized by all the nine others to file the present application. Mere giving of an affidavit, but without annexing any proof thereof is not sufficient. Thus in the absence of any authorization proof, it is submitted that Sh Lal Bahadur is not authorized to file the alleged application, and it is therefore bound to be rejected.

2. 2. Further, the application is incomplete and improper in as much that no details of the alleged claim have been appended in the chart, which makes the application ambiguous and confusing, as it merely mentions the total amount against each name/ designation, without giving/explaining any details whatsoever. As such it is not valid, and the application is most liable to be rejected on this plea alone.

3. 3. Without prejudice to the above objections, the alleged application is also liable to be rejected since it is made u/s 33 C (5) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is categorically submitted that none of the applicant(s) is an employee of the Opposite Party No 1- Warehouse Manager, Steel Authority of India Limited. No relationship of master and servant or employer and employee exists and/or ever existed between the applicant(s) and the Opposite Party No 1 SAIL. The alleged application is therefore not maintainable u/s 33 C (5) qua Opposite Party No 1.

4. 4. Furthermore, the notice dated 21.5.2014 issued by the learned Tribunal u/s 33 C (2) of the Act is also not maintainable against Opposite Party No 1. It is categorically re-iterated, that none of the applicant(s) is an employee of the Opposite Party No 1 Warehouse Manager, Steel Authority of India Limited. No relationship of master and servant or employer and employee exists and/or ever existed between the applicant(s) and the Opposite Party No 1 SAIL. The alleged application is therefore, also not maintainable u/s 33 C (2) qua Opposite Party No 1-SAIL.

5. 5. The contents of para 1 are denied being contrary to facts. The applicants are put to strict proof of their allegations. The true facts are that the applicants are not the employees of opposite party no1. They were employees of opposite party no 2 and deployed by the contractor M/s Onkar Enterprise (O.P. No. 2) at his own free will for surveillance, fighting and allied services, under an agreement dated 31st August 2009 and its terms and conditions. Thus they worked under the sole & complete command, and supervision of the contractor O.P. No. 2, and not the O.P. No. 1, as alleged. A copy of the agreement dated 31st August 2009 is enclosed as ANNEXURE-1

*Handwritten signature and date: 12.8.20*

1. 6. The persons named in para 2 were deployed by the O.P.No.2 M/s Onkar Enterprise in terms of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. Thus the O.P.No.2 M/s Onkar Enterprise is in a better position to respond to this para. It is essential and appropriate that the Opposite Party no 2 files his reply, rather than the opposite party no 1 commenting on behalf of Opposite Party no 2. Accordingly, appropriate directions be given to the opposite party no 2 to file its reply. It is further submitted that no relationship of master and servant or employer and employee exists and/or ever existed between the applicant(s) and the Opposite Party No 1 SAL. The alleged application is therefore not maintainable u/s 33 C (5) qua Opposite Party No 1.

2. 7. The contents of para 3 are denied, being fabricated, misleading and contrary to facts on record. Besides being vague and inconsistent, they are baseless, as no rate and calculation etc. have been mentioned. It is submitted that the payment of wages is done to its own contract labours (applicants) by the O.P. No 2 M/s Onkar Enterprise, in the presence of official of the opposite party no 1. No complaint whatsoever has ever been noticed except for the period October, November and December 2013, when the O.P. No 2 did not pay wages to its own employees deployed by him. Consequently, due to failure of OP 2 to make payments to its employees, the O.P. No 1 made payments to the employees of the O.P. No 2 M/s Onkar Enterprise under compulsion, and with due intimation to Sh Deependra Mohan Verma, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) Gorakhpur, Office at Kanpur. The O.P.No.2 M/s Onkar Enterprise is in a better position to respond to this para. It is essential and appropriate that the Opposite Party no 2 files his reply, rather than the opposite party no 1 commenting on behalf of Opposite Party no 2. Accordingly, appropriate directions be given to the opposite party no 2 to file its reply.

3. 8. Furthermore, out of the 18 contract workers to be deployed by O.P. No 2 in terms of the contract dated 31.8. 2009, only 10 have signed the present application. Thus the false, fictitious and malicious claims towards short payments of wages have been made allegedly through the present claim application on instigation and on ill advice, which is evident from the fact that balance 8 persons have not raised any such claim, while all have been paid wages at the same rate.

4. 9. O.P. No 1 has regularly enforced the provisions of CLRA Act, 1970 and Rules there under.

5. 10. Nothing is due and payable to the applicants by O.P. No 1 as allegedly estimated at Rs. 3, 14,670.00, in any manner whatsoever, thus the claim application of applicants is liable to be rejected out rightly, in the interest of justice and equity.

6. 11. In the light of the above factual contentions, the prayer portion qua O.P no 1 is bound to be denied.

Respondent No. 2 has submitted the written statement with averments which may be summarized as stated below:

On 12.8.23

1. 1. No case is maintainable against the Opp. Party No. 02 Colonel H.S. Boparai being individual person. A case if any is always maintainable against a company, firm or a corporation.

2. 2. It is submitted that a contractor is not defined as employer u/s 2-G of the Industrial dispute Act 1947 therefore the Industrial dispute Act 1947 is not applicable against the Opposite Party no. 02. As such the application of the applicants is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.

3. 3. The application under Section 33-C2 of the Industrial dispute Act 1947 can be moved only for an existing right, the applicants have no existing right therefore the application of the applicants is liable to be rejected.

4. 4. The demand of the applicants is highly disputed. A disputed claim cannot be entertain under the Section 33-C2 of the Industrial dispute Act, 1947. As such the application of the applicants is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.

5. 5. The contents of the application are not verified by the applicants. The application of the applicants is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected.

6. 6. It is submitted that the above preliminary objections go to the very route of the case; therefore they may be decided first before entering into the merit of the case.

7. 7. Without prejudice to the above preliminary objections the opposite party no. 02 is submitting reply objection against the application of the applicants as under.

8. 8. The contents of para no. 01 and 02 of the application are wrong, baseless and misleading hence not admitted. The applicants are put to strict proof of his contentions.

9. 9. The contents of Para No. 03 of the application are wrong, baseless and vague hence are not admitted. Since no detail of deduction has been given by the applicants, it is not possible to reply the same.

10. 10. The contents of Para No. 04 of the application are not admitted. The applicants are put to strict proof of his contentions.

11. 11. The contents of para no. 05 of the application are concerned with opposite party no. 02 as such no comment is offered. The applicants are put to strict proof of his contentions.

12. 12. The contents of Para No. 06 of the application are not admitted. The applicants are put to strict proof of his contentions.

13. 13. The contents of Para No.12 of the application are wrong, baseless and misconceived hence are not admitted. The applicants are put to strict proof of his contentions. It is also submitted that the contentions of the applicants of this para relates to Contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970 thus they cannot be considered in the present proceeding.

14. 14. The contents of Para No. 13 of the application of the applicants are wrong, baseless and misconceived hence are not admitted. The applicants are put to strict proof of his contentions. The opposite party has not deducted any money. Agreed amount has already been paid to the applicants. The applicants have not made any complaint are have not moved any application during contract period. It is pertinent to mention here that the contract period of the O.P. No. 02 has expired on 30.09.2013. No dues of any applicants are outstanding.

✓ 12.9.14

15. The contents of Prayer of the applicants are wrong, baseless and misconceived hence are not admitted. No dues of any applicants are outstanding. The chart is not admitting. The applicants are not entitled to any money as mentioned in the prayer. Therefore it is expedient in the interest of justice the application of the applicants be kindly rejected, Holding that the applicants are not entitled to any money.

After that applicant filed some documents which is read as under:

1. 1. Details of salary underpayment regarding Lal Bahadur and 9 others.

2. 2. Photocopy of bank passbook (October 2010 to August 2012).

3. 3. Photocopy of the accounts roll (salary statement).

4. 4. Photocopy of the attendance sheet.

5. 5. Notice regarding salary payment for October, November, and December 2013, issued by the Steel Authority of India (SAIL) Warehouse, Panki, Kanpur, dated 21.01.2014.

6. 6. Notices issued by Supervisor Tansen, dated 05.07.2013, 07.07.2013, and 13.07.2013.

In rebuttal opposite party no. 1 filed documents which are read as under:

1. 1. Certificate of registration under Sub-Section (2) of Section 7 of The contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition Act, 1970 in favour of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Panki, Kanpur.

2. 2. Agreement dated 31st of August 2009 between Steel Authority of India Ltd. and M/s. Onkar Enterprise 736, Sector 29 Noida G.B. Nagar (U.P.)

3. 3. Security Agency Guidelines of Directorate General of Resettlement.

4. 4. Extension of contract for Surveillance, Fire Fighting & Allied Services at S.A.I.L.

5. 5. Letter dated 21.1.2014 of Ware House Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd., Panki to Sri Deependra Mohan, Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)

In claim statement applicant is requested that the workmen continuously employed from September 2009 to 31.12.2013 at the Steel Authority of India (SAIL) in Kanpur, who are seeking the recovery of an outstanding wage deficit totalling ₹3,14,627.00. The claim asserts that the contract labor system used by the management is a sham designed to mask a permanent employment relationship, and that the respondents committed unfair labor practices by intentionally omitting the Branch Manager of SAIL Kanpur as a necessary party. Furthermore, the employers are accused of statutory and financial violations, including breaching Rule 25 of the Central Contract Labour Rules, ignoring Director General Resettlement (DGR) wage guidelines, and engaging in fraudulent cheque practices to underpay workers outside the presence of principal representatives. Having exhausted administrative remedies through failed conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) in December 2013, the applicants are now presenting this Labour Court Application to recover their legally due wages.

As per written statement of opposite party number 1, that there was never and continuous to be no employee-employer relationship between the answering party and applicant. Contents of para 10 are denied, being incorrect. The opposite party number 2, Sh H S Boparai of M/s Onkar Enterprises, 736 Sector 29, Noida, on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the contract dated 31.08.2009 between him and O.P. No. 1 concerning firefighting/surveillance.

The applicant version is misleading and misdirected and contrary to facts, no oral evidence has been filled by the applicant to prove his version. The service of the applicant was never taken by O.P. No. 1 from September, 2009 to 31.12.2013 as alleged. It is submitted that the applicant was neither appointed nor engaged by OP no. 1 at any point of time.

The Opposite party number 2 on his own engaged the applicant apparently in terms of the contract date 31.08.2009.

Opposite party number 2 requested that he is a contractor and not an employer as defined in section 2 G of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The contract work awarded to the opposite party no. 2 was time bound, it is fully known to the applicant hence no any locus standi to claim further work or challenge the disengagement as the project work came to an end by afflux of time.

Applicant was employed on contractual basis as per the requirement of opposite party number 1 and it was a time bound project as per requirement, need and desire of the opposite party number 1.

The matter was repeatedly fixed for the evidence of the applicant. A review of the order sheets reveals that ample, sufficient, and reasonable opportunities were extended to the applicants to oral evidence, and face cross-examination to substantiate their claims.

Despite clear directions and multiple chances granted over successive hearings, the applicants consistently failed to produce any oral evidence.

As per documentary evidence of applicant, applicant's petition is not proved because applicant is failed to produce oral evidence. No opportunity for cross-examination against above documentary evidence.

Furthermore, on recent consecutive dates of hearing, neither the applicants nor their authorized representative appeared before this Court, demonstrating a total lack of interest in pursuing the litigation.

As the applicants have explicitly failed to discharge their primary burden of proof and have continuously absent themselves from the court proceedings, this Court is left with no option but to dismiss the claim for want of evidence and non-prosecution.

Consequent to the above findings, the present Labour Court Application is hereby **DISMISSED** against the applicants due to non-filing of oral evidence, lack of proof, and persistent non-prosecution.

Date: 12.08.2026

Presiding Officer CGIT, Kanpur