Appellant Union Surana and Surana SC of Zafhistan

Page |1
st
1 SURANA & SURANA & SCHOOL OF LAW, RAFFLES UNIVERSITY
NATIONAL LABOUR LAW MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2018
Before
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZAFHISTAN
CIVIL APPEAL NO _ OF 2017
UNDER ARTICLE 136 & ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ZAFHISTAN
BETWEEN
UNION……………………………………………………....…APPELLANT& PETITIONER
M
V.
UNNATI INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION………………………………..RESPONDENT 1
&
STATE GOVERNMENT OF ZAFHISTAN………………………………RESPONDENT 2
IN THE MATTER CONCERNING UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES, CHILD LABOUR AND
LIABILITY OF GST
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT & PETITIONER

Page |2
st
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……………………………………………………………...……4
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………...……….5
Judicial Decisions……………………………………………………………….……….6
Books & Treaties………………………………………………………………...…........6
Statutes……………………………………………………………………….….……….7
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION……………………………………………………..……..6
STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………………………………9
STATEMENT OF ISSUES…………………………………………………………………….10
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS…………………………………………………………....….10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED…………………………………………………………………..11
[1] WHETHER UIC AND CANTEEN WORKERS FULFILLED THE EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP?.............................................................................................................................13
[1.1] Doctrine of contract of service is fulfilled in this case…………………………………..14
[1.2] The canteen workers were employees of the company……………………………...…15
[2] WHETHER THE TREATMENT AWARDED TO THE 14 WORKERS IS DISCRIMINATORY IN

NATURE?........................................................................................................................................16
[2.1] UIC classification is violative of article 14 and article 16 of the constitution of India..19
[2.2] Doctrine of equal pay for equal work not fulfilled…………………………………..…20
[2.3] Entitled for class IV employees’ wages………………………………………………….20

Page |3
st
[3] WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF THE SERVICE OF THREE OF THE WORKERS WAS NOT
VALID?........................................................................................................................................21
[3.1] The retrenchment order was illegal …………………………………………………...21
[3.2] Reinstatement with back wages must be given………………………………….…….22
[3.3] Unfair labour practice by UIC……………………………………………………...…23
[4] WHETHER STATE IS HELD LIABLE FOR VIOLATING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE 4
CHILD?.........................................................................................................................................23
[4.1] Child Labor amendment act 2016 makes complete ban on children employed below 14
years of age.…………………………..……………………………………………………23
[4.2] Violation of constitutional provisions……………………..…………………………….23
[4.3] Violation of provisions relating to child labour in labour laws………………………..23
[4.4] Not in accordance to International conventions on child labour ratified by India…24
[5.1 ] WHETHER UIC IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO PAY THE GST? …………………………… 24
PRAYER ……………………………………………………………………...………………. 27

Page |4
st
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
& And M.P. Madhya Pradesh

§ Section Mad. Madras
A.P. Andhra Pradesh NOC Notes Of Citations
AIR All India Report Ori. Orissa
Anr Another Ors. Others
Art. Article P&H Punjab and Haryana
Corprn. Corporation P.M. Post Meridian
Cri. Criminal P.W. Prime Witness
Cr.R Criminal Ruling Pat. Patna
Cri.LR Criminal Law Report Punj. Punjab
CrLJ Criminal Law Journal S.L.T Supreme Law Times
Cur LJ Current Law Journal SC Supreme Court
Cut LT Cuttak Law times SCC Supreme Court Cases
Dr. Doctor SCR Supreme Court Reports
Edn. Edition Sd. Signed
F.I.R. First Information Sim. Shimla
Report
Gau. Guwahati Sim.L J Shimla Law Times
Govt. Government Supp. Supplement
Guj. Gujrat U.P Uttar Pradesh
H.P. Himachal Pradesh u/s Under Section
Hon’ble Honorable Utt. Uttrakhand
J.C.C Journal of Criminal v. Versus
Cases
Lah. Lahore Vol. Volume
LJex Law Journal W.B. West Bengal
Exchequer
LRI Law Reports WAR Western Australian
Reports

Page |5
st
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
1. Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Co. Ltd v Workman 1995 Supp (1) SCC 14
175: 1995 SCC (L&S) 372:
2. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1997) 10 SCC 549: AIR 1997 SC 13
2218.
3. Bapuji Educational Assn. v. State AIR 1986 Kant 119. 11

4. Baser Uddin M.Madari v. State of Karnataka 1995 Supp (4) SCC 111
5. Basheer v. State of Kerala, (2004) 3 SCC 609: AIR 2004 SC 2757. 10
6. Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana (1987) 4 SCC 634 12
7. Budhan Chowdhry v. State of Bihar, 1955 (1) SCR 1045 (1049): AIR 1955 SC 11
191
8. D.T.C v. Mazdoor Union D.T.C., AIR 1991 SC 101: (1991) Supp.1 SC 600 17
9. Daily rated casual labour employed under P & T departmental through Bhartiya 15
Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v. Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 122.
10. Dharam Dutt v Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 712, 747 (Para 56): AIR 2004 SC 17
1295
11. Dharangadhra Chemical Works ltd. v. State of Saurashtra & Ors. 1957 SCR 19
152: AIR 1957 SC 264:(1957) 1 LLJ 477
12. Dhirendra Chamoli and another v. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637: 1986 SCC 26
(L&S) 187
13. Executive Engineer, B&C Deptt. Miraj Sangli v. Riyaj Nasir Daryawardi, 2006 23
LLR 597
14. G.B. Pant University of Agriculture v State of U.P. (2000) 7 SCC 109: 2000 20
SCC (L&S) 884
15. Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy (2004) 1 SCC 347 22
16. Gujarat State Road Transport corporation v. Workman of State Transport 24

Corporation, 2000 LLR 182 (GUJ HC)
17. Hindustan Steel Ltd. v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Orissa (1977) 1 SCR
586: (1976) 4 SCC 222
18. J.K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Kanpur v. Iron and Steel Mazdoor Union, Kanpur 15
(1955)2 SCR 1315: 1956 (I) LLJ 227: AIR 1956 SC 231
19. J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh. 1999 Cri LJ 632 (Mad). 11
20. K. Prabhakaran v P. Jayarajan, (2005) 1 SCC 754: AIR 2005 SC 688 14

Page |6
st
21. Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre, AIR 2004 SC 4282: 2004 AIR SCW 4758: 13
2004 LLR 969 (SC)
22. M.C. Mehta v. State of T.N 1996) 6 SCC 756. 12
23. M.C. Mehta v. State of T.N. (1991) Cri LJ 632 (Mad). 14

24. M.M.R. Khan Case 1990 Supp SCC 191: 1990 SCC (L&s) 632: (1991) 16 ATC 15
541. (2001) 1 SCC 298
25. M/s.Avon Services Production Agencies (P) Ltd. v Industrial Tribunal, Haryana 16
1979 SCC (L & S) 15,
26. Municipal Committee, Patiala v. Model Town Resident Assn. (2007) 8 SCC 669: 17
AIR 2007 SC2849
27. N. Bhageerathan v. State Unni Krishnan, AIR 1993 SC 2178 20
28. Orissa University of Agricultural & Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty, (2003) 5 11
SCC 188
29. Paramjit Singh v. Labour Court, Patiala, 2013 (I) LLJ 497 (P&H HC) 11
30. Parimal Chandra Raha v Life Insurance Corporation of India 1995 Supp 2 SCC 21
611: AIR 1995 SC 1666
31. people’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (1982) 3 SCC 235: AIR 13
1982 SC 1473
32. Saraspur Mills Co. Ltd vs Ramanlal Chimanlal & Ors (1974) 3 SCC 66: 1973 13
SCC (L&S) 410.
33. Saraswat Corp. Bank ltd. v. State of Maharastra (2006) 8 SCC 520 24
34. State of Haryana v Tilak Raj (2003) 6 SCC 123 23
35. State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh (2006) 9 SCC 321; 22

36. State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh (1996) 11 SCC 77; 20
37. State of Punjab and Ors. v Jagjit Singh and Ors. 2010 SCC P&H 6662 21
38. Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, (2001) 7 SCC 545: AIR 2001 SC 3285. 22
39. Superintending Engineer, Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Bhura 25
Ram, 2007 (115) FLR 703: 2007 (2) Shim LC 279 (SN) HP HC
40. Surendra Prasad Khugsal v Chairman, M.M.T Corpn. of India 1994 Supp (1) 24
SCC 87: 1994 SCC (L&S) 418: (1994) 26 ATC 744: JT (1993) 5 SC 80
41. Union of India v M. Aslam (2001) 1 SCC 720: 2001 SCC(L&S) 302 22
42. Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani steels Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 381: (2001) 2 SCC 17
381
43. Vst Industries Ltd vs Vst Industries Workers Union & Anr (2001) 1 SCC 298 15

Page |7
st
BOOKS
1. Acharya Durga das Basu, Commentary on Constitution of India, VOL.5, 8th EDN. Lexis
Nexis Butterworth’s Wadhwa, 2009.
2. Dr. V. G. Goswami, Labour& Industrial Laws, 10th EDN., Central Law Agency, 2015
3. Kharbhanda, Commentaries on Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, 6th
EDN., Law Publishing House, 2007.
4. G B Pai, Labour Law in India, VOL. 1-2, Butterworth’s, 2001.
5. Vashishtha Chaudhry, GST A Practical Approach, 3rd EDN., Taxmann, 2017.
6. Abhishek A Rastogi, Professional’s Guide to GST-From Ideation to Reality, 3rd EDN.,

Lexis Nexis, 2017.
7. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, VOL .1,6th EDN., Lexis Nexis,2010.
LEXICONS
1. P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s, The Law Lexicon, 2nd EDN., Lexis Nexis Butterworth’s Wadhwa,
2009.
2. Black, Henry Campbell, Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., Centennial Ed. (1891-1991)
STATUTES
1. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. The Constitution of India, 1950.
3. The Factories Act, 1948.
4. The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016.
5. The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
6. The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1976.
7. Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

Page |8
st
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Appellant has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Zafhistan under Art.136
and Article 32 of the Constitution of Zafhistan the Appellant most humbly and respectfully
submits before the jurisdiction of the present court.
Art. 136-
“Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant
special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any
cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.”
Article 32-
“Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-
(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of
the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights
conferred by this Part.”

Page |9
st
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1.Unnati industrial Corporation, has a canteen-cum- food-court facility run by a contractor
named Bhola Prasad and supervised by UIC Canteen and Management committee. It also
setup a recognized educational institute providing 25 % reservation in total intake for the
outsiders.
2. Bhola Prasad submitted a written memorandum unwilling to pay GST as it will reduce his
profit margin along-with government notification mentioning items for charging GST on
canteen items w.e.f. July 1 st 2017. But the committee insisted that the goods and services
should be at the same rate, if not, it will defeat the purpose of providing quality food at cheap
rates. He shut down the canteen and appraise about uncooperative and irresponsible attitude
of workers towards. Bhola Prasad shut down the canteen. A meeting was scheduled between
the elected representative of union and the committee, eventually leading to termination of 3
workers.
3. The Union Approached the court with regard to the issue of GST, Reinstatement and
discrimination. The tribunal give the Judgment in Favour of Union, aggrieved with that the
UIC filed a case in High Court which also in the favour of UIC but the High Court Division
Bench denied reinstatement and stated the canteen workers are not the employees of UIC.
4. Aggrieved by the judgement, the Union approached the Supreme Court through a SLP and
also filed two separate writs. In the first writ they are contending that the State Government
of Zafhisthan is ignoring the matter of child labour on purpose for favoring the UIC. The
second writ is filed to decide that who should bear the burden of GST.

P a g e | 10
st
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
ISSUE 1
WHETHER UIC AND CANTEEN WORKERS FULFILLED THE EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP?
ISSUE 2
WHETHER THE TREATMENT AWARDED TO THE 14 WORKERS IS DISCRIMINATORY IN NATURE?
ISSUE 3
WHETHER THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT WAS JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE DECISION OF
REINSTATEMENT?
ISSUE 4
WHETHER STATE IS HELD FOR EMPLOYING CHILD LABOUR?
ISSUE 5
WHETHER UIC IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO PAY THE GST?

P a g e | 11
st
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1- Whether UIC and canteen workers fulfilled the employer-employee relationship?
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the doctrine of contract of service
is valid in this case as well as the statutory obligations of maintaining the canteen makes the
canteen workers employee of the principal employer
ISSUE 2- Whether the treatment awarded to the 14 workers is discriminatory in nature?
As article 14 prohibits class legislation and promotes only reasonable classification which is not
done in this case because UIC treat the 14 canteen workers discriminatory with respect to others.
ISSUE 3-Whether the termination of the service of three of the workers was not valid?
Retrenchment doesn’t fulfill the essential of section 25-F which is mandatory in nature that’s
why retrenchment is not valid and the terminated workers are entitled for reinstatement &
backwages.
ISSUE4- Whether State is held for employing child labour?
In the instant case UIC is liable for practice of child labour in its undertaking as 4 child workers
were employed in the canteen of UIC which is violative of article 24 of the constitution of India
which completely prohibit employment of children in factories below the age of 14.
ISSUE 5: Whether UIC is under obligation to pay the GST?
In the statutory obligations to maintain the canteen the UIC is bound to pay the GST as Bhola
Prasad is only a contractor and working under the supervision of UIC Canteen and Management
Committee and hence UIC is liable to pay GST.

P a g e | 12
st
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
[1] WHETHER UIC AND CANTEEN WORKERS FULFILLED THE EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE
RELATIONSHIP?
1. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the instant case there is an
employer employee relationship between UIC and the canteen workers as the canteen
workers directly belongs to UIC.
This submission is two folded. [1.1] Doctrine of contract of service is fulfilled in this case.
[1.2] The canteen workers were employees of the company.
[1.1] Doctrine of contract of service is fulfilled in this case
2. The principles according to which the relationship as between the employer and employee or
master and servant has got to be determined are well settled. The test which is uniformly
applied in order to determine the relationship is the existence of a right of control in respect
of the manner in which the work is to be done. A distinction is also drawn between a contract
for service and contract of service and that distinction is put in this way: “In one case the
master can order or require what is to be done while in the other case he can only order or
require what is to be done but how itself it shall be done. The principal requirement of a
contract of service is the right of master in reasonable sense to control the method of doing
the work and this factor of superintendence and control has frequently been treated as critical
and decisive of legal quality of relationship1.
1
Dharangadhra Chemical Works ltd. v. State of Saurashtra & Ors. 1957 SCR 152: AIR 1957 SC 264: (1957) 1 LLJ
477

P a g e | 13
st
3. This canteen is run by a contractor named Bhola Prasad under the supervision of UIC
Canteen and Management Committee (Committee) through a written understanding. The
committee ensure the smooth functioning for anyone who avails the canteen services2. The
corporation was taking interest in not only managing the canteen but also in the constitution
of the committees for management of the canteens.
4. In the instant case the facts are adequate to established that the contract is of ‘contract of
service’ because the UIC was using the greater amount of direct control over the canteen for
its functioning by supervising the work by his own committee through a written
understanding. In this case contractor is less independent in taking the decision because the
contractor was working according to the written understanding framed by UIC, even the
price for the canteen product is fixed by the UIC which clearly justify UIC direct control over
the canteen and the workers.
[1.2] The canteen workers are employees of the company
5. It is humbly submitted that from the facts and precedent case laws it is clearly established
that the canteen workers are the employees of the company. As in this case UIC employs
more than 5000 employees and workers working in its complex named ‘Unnati Complex’
which clearly fulfilled one of the main essential of section 46 of the factories act, 1948 i.e.,
the factory must require more than two hundred and fifty workers.
6. Canteen maintained under obligatory provisions of the factories act for the use of employees
became a part of establishment and the workers employed in such canteens are employees of
the management. A catena of decisions of the Supreme court make it aptly clear that wherein
discharge of a statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen in an establishment the principal

2
Page 1 ¶.1 Fact Sheet

P a g e | 14
st
employer availed the services of a contractor the contract labourer would indeed be the
employer of the principal employer3.
7. The supreme court in VST Industries case4, G.B. Pant University case5 and M. Aslam case6
talks about statutory liability to maintain the canteen by the principal employer in the
factory/establishment. In these cases, court held that the contract labour working in the
canteen were treated as workers of the principal employer.
8. Exactly in this case the UIC under the obligations to maintain the canteen for his 5000
employees and workers need to maintain a canteen and the workers in the canteen working
under the contractor to maintain the canteen in the UIC premises are the employees of the
principal employer i.e., Unnati industrial corporation.
[1.2.1] Workers need no direct connection with manufacture process
9. In Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Printing Co. Ltd v Workman7 and the Mills Saraspur Case8 the
court held that in order to come within the definition of the employee it was not necessary
that the person be directly connected with the manufacture. Thus even malis would be
employees. Further, the court held that since under the factories act, the company was bound
to maintain a canteen, the canteen workers were employees of the company.
3
Surendra Prasad Khugsal v Chairman, M.M.T Corpn. of India 1994 Supp (1) SCC 87: 1994 SCC (L&S) 418:
(1994) 26 ATC 744: JT (1993) 5 SC 80, M.M.R. Khan Case 1990 Supp SCC 191: 1990 SCC (L&s) 632: (1991) 16
ATC 541.
4
(2001) 1 SCC 298
5
G.B. Pant University of Agriculture v State of U.P. (2000) 7 SCC 109: 2000 SCC (L&S) 884
6
Union of India v M. Aslam (2001) 1 SCC 720: 2001 SCC(L&S) 302
7
1995 Supp (1) SCC 175: 1995 SCC (L&S) 372: Vividh Kamgar Sabha v. Kalyani steels Ltd., (2001) 2 SCC 381:
(2001) 2 SCC 381.
8
(1974) 3 SCC 66: 1973 SCC (L&S) 410.

P a g e | 15
st
10. In the instant case as the canteen workers are not directly involved in the manufacturing
process instead of that they are treated as the employee of the principal employer which is
UIC in this case.
[2] WHETHER THE TREATMENT AWARDED TO THE 14 WORKERS IS DISCRIMINATORY IN
NATURE?
11. It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the treatment awarded to the 14
workers working in the company is discriminatory with respect to the other workers in the
canteen. The submission is three folded. [2.1] UIC classification is violative of article 14 and
article 16 of the constitution of India [2.2] Doctrine of equal pay for equal work not fulfilled
[2.3] Entitled for class IV employees’ wages
[2.1] UIC classification is violative of article 14 and article 16 of the constitution of India
12. In the instant case 14 canteen workers are being kept under temporary rules and on that
pretext are being denied of various statutory as well as non-statutory benefits which are given
to permanent workers. Mainly, in many establishments non-permanent workers are given
consolidated wage which are far below the occupational wage and do not carry the benefit of
dearness allowance paid to permanent employees and also denied other benefits like statutory
bonus, supply of uniform etc.
[2.1.1] Classification must have founded on the principle of intelligible differentia
13. As has been already stated, what Art.14 prohibits is class legislation and not reasonable
classification for the purpose of legislation.9
9
Budhan Chowdhry v. State of Bihar, 1955 (1) SCR 1045 (1049): AIR 1955 SC 191, Dharam Dutt v Union of India,
(2004) 1 SCC 712, 747 (Para 56): AIR 2004 SC 1295; Dharam Dutt v. Union of India, (2004) 1 SCC 712, AIR 2007
SC 2844.

P a g e | 16
st
14. In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be
fulfilled, namely, (I) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia
which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the
group and (II) that, differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the statute in question.10The laying down of the intelligible differentia does not,
however mean that the legislative classification should be scientifically perfect and logically
complete. As long as the extent of over inclusiveness or under inclusiveness of the
classification is marginal, the vice of the infringement of Art.14 would not affect the
legislation.11 If the government fails to support its action of classification on the touchstone
of principle whether the classification is reasonable having an intelligible differentia and a
rational basis germane to purpose has to be held as arbitrary and discriminatory.12
15. The UIC classification is not founded on the principle of intelligible differentia as it is not
reasonable classifications, from the facts it is clear that there are 18 workers in the canteen in
which 4 are treated differently and the remaining 14 are treated in different way. Apart from
that the UIC failed to justify that why they are treating the 14 workers differently. As we
know that article 14 clearly prohibits the class legislation and only promotes reasonable
classification which must require a rational basis and not to be held as arbitrary and
discriminatory.
[2.2] Doctrine of equal pay for equal work not fulfilled
10
K. Prabhakaran v P. Jayarajan, (2005) 1 SCC 754: AIR 2005 SC 688; Saraswat Corp. Bank ltd. v. State of
Maharastra (2006) 8 SCC 520; Municipal Committee, Patiala v. Model Town Resident Assn. (2007) 8 SCC 669:
AIR 2007 SC 2849
11
Basheer v. State of Kerala, (2004) 3 SCC 609: AIR 2004 SC 2757.
12
Sube Singh v. State of Haryana, (2001) 7 SCC 545: AIR 2001 SC 3285.

P a g e | 17
st
16. Temporary employees performing similar duties and functions as discharged by permanent
employees entitled to draw wages at par with permanent employees in the government sector.
Mere difference in nomenclature would not disentitle a form being paid the same wage as
permanent employees. In this case different treatment to the 14 workers clearly state that they
not get the similar amount as of the remaining 14 workers.
[2.2.1] Unequal pay leads to violation of fundamental rights
17. The classification of workers doing the same work, into different categories for payment of
wages at different rates is not tenable. Such an act of the employer would amount to
exploitation and shall be arbitrary and discriminatory and therefore violative of article 14 and
16 of the constitution.13
18. The SC observed that an employee engaged for the same work cannot be paid less than
another who performs the same duties and responsibilities and certainly not in welfare state.
Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situated, constitutes an act of
exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly the action is
oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. The SC further
observed that India being a signatory to the international covenant on economic social and
cultural rights, 1966 there is no escape from the obligations thereunder in view of the
different provisions of the constitution14.
[2.3] Entitled for class IV employees’ wages
13
Daily rated casual labour employed under P & T departmental through Bharatiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch v.
Union of India (1988) 1 SCC 122.
14
State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh (2006) 9 SCC 321; State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh (1996) 11 SCC 77; State
of Haryana v Tilak Raj (2003) 6 SCC 123; Orissa University of Agricultural & Technology v. Manoj K. Mohanty,
(2003) 5 SCC 188; Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy (2004) 1 SCC 347

P a g e | 18
st
19. Discrimination of non-permanent staff in India, especially contract Labour, which
discrimination must be avoided at all costs. Infact, the contract Labour (Regulation &
Abolition) Act 1970 requires the contractor to ensure that the rates of wages payable to the
workmen of the contractor are not less than the rates prescribed under the minimum wages
act, 1948.
20. In State of Punjab & Ors. v Rajinder Kumar15, court held that temporary employees would
be entitled to minimum of the pay scale alongwith permissible allowance (revised from time
to time), which were being given to similarly placed permanent employees.
21. In Parimal Chandra Raha v Life Insurance Corporation of India16 They have prayed for the
minimum salary paid to the employees of the Corporation which necessarily means the
minimum salary of the lowest paid employees of the Corporation, i.e., of class IV employees.
There would be no difficulty in directing the payment to them of the minimum of the salary
paid to the Class IV employees of the Corporation. Pending the prescription of such service
conditions the Corporation should pay to all the appellants the minimum of the salary
presently paid to its Class IV employees taking into consideration and making allowance for
the special facilities, if any available to them and also their special working conditions.
In addition, the Corporation should also give them the benefit of the other service
conditions available to its Class IV employees.
15
Supra note 16
16
1995 Supp 2 SCC 611: AIR 1995 SC 1666; Baser Uddin M. Madari v. State of Karnataka 1995 Supp (4) SCC
111; Dhirendra Chamoli and another v. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637: 1986 SCC (L&S) 187

P a g e | 19
st
22. Same in this case the workers must be given the wages as per the norms of the UIC for
paying wages to class 4 employees. As the 14 workers were not getting the wages of the class
IV employees because of the discriminatory policy of the UIC with the canteen workers.
[2.3.1] Selection process doesn’t matter
23. In a claim for equal wages, the duration for which an employee remains or has remained
engaged, the manner of selection/appointment etc. would be inconsequential, insofar as
applicability of the principle is concerned.17 This clearly justify that whether there selection
criteria is different or the same, it doesn’t affect the claim for the equal wages for these 14
workers.
[3] WHETHER THE TERMINATION OF THE SERVICE OF THREE OF THE WORKERS WAS NOT
VALID
24. It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the termination of the service of
three workers is illegal and cannot be enforceable. The submission is three folded. [3.1] The
retrenchment order was illegal [3.2] Reinstatement with back wages must be given [3.3]
Unfair labour practice by UIC
[3.1] The retrenchment order was illegal
25. A plain reading of section 25 F makes it clear that the requirement prescribed by it is a
condition precedent for the retrenchment of the workmen, and non-compliance with the said
condition renders the impugned retrenchment invalid and inoperative. The mandatory
17
Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana (1987) 4 SCC 634

P a g e | 20
st
language of section 25F of the act, plain and unambiguous in effect, leaves no manner of
doubt that the payment of compensation as required by it, is a condition precedent to
retrenchment as held by Supreme court18. It has been clarified that if the retrenchment is not
in accordance with section 25F because compensation was not paid, then retrenchment is
invalid notwithstanding the fact that the amount of compensation can be recovered under
section 25F of the act.
26. In this sphere of public employment, this means that any action taken by the employer
against an employee must be ‘fair, just to reasonable’ which are the components of ‘fair
treatment’19. Thus, the conferment of absolute power to dismiss a permanent employee is
antithesis to just or fair treatment.
[3.1.1] Compensation must be given at the time of retrenchment
27. Payment of retrenchment compensation simultaneously at the time of termination is
mandatory and its noncompliance renders retrenchment void ab-initio20.
[3.2] Reinstatement with back wages must be given
28. An employer cannot be permitted to exploit a human being, violate the law and show the
workman exit door without just cause or legal justification. Such workman must have the
18
J.K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. Kanpur v. Iron and Steel Mazdoor Union, Kanpur (1955) 2 SCR 1315: 1956 (I) LLJ
227: AIR 1956 SC 231

19
D.T.C v. Mazdoor Union D.T.C., AIR 1991 SC 101: (1991) Supp.1 SC 600
20
Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre, AIR 2004 SC 4282: 2004 AIR SCW 4758: 2004 LLR 969 (SC)

P a g e | 21
st
protection of his life, liberty, and right to exist in same comfort by securing adequate means
of livelihood protected under article 21 of the constitution of India21.
29. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Orissa,22 three Judges Division
Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court on finding that there was a contravention of the provisions of
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, affirmed the award of the Labour court directing
reinstatement with full back wages. In another case M/s.Avon Services Production Agencies
(P) Ltd. v Industrial Tribunal, Haryana23, Hon'ble Apex Court found that there was
retrenchment without compliance with the prescribed conditions precedent. Therefore, their
Lordships said that the retrenchment was invalid and the relief of reinstatement with full back
wages was amply deserved.
30. The reinstatement must need to be done in this case as the three worker whose work were
terminated without any adequate legal justification and not even complying with the
mandatory provisions of the retrenchment. So the reinstatement and the backwages will
compensate the victim workman and help them to live with human dignity by accessing the
needs of the human being which is food, shelter and clothing.
[3.3] Unfair labour practice by UIC
21
Paramjit Singh v. Labour Court, Patiala, 2013 (I) LLJ 497 (P&H HC)
22
(1977) 1 SCR 586: (1976) 4 SCC 222
23
1979 SCC (L & S) 15,

P a g e | 22
st
31. It has been held that the termination of a workman would amount to unfair labour practice
when he was in continuous service for more than 240 days24.Engaging casual and temporary
workers for years together and denying permanency will amount to unfair labour practices25.
Section 25U, deals with the Penalty for committing unfair labour practices in the instant case
both of the act are committed by the UIC initially engaging temporary workers in canteen
which is to fulfill their statutory obligation and secondly the termination of the workman
without fulfilling the mandatory provisions. Thus, the UIC is liable under section 25U of
Industrial disputes act.
[4] Whether State is held liable for violating the fundamental rights of the 4 child?
32. It is humbly submitted before Hon’ble Supreme Court that in the instant case State is liable
for practice of child labour in its undertaking as 4 child workers were employed in the
canteen of UIC, two of age 12 and other two of age 13 years and 8 months and 13 years 5
months respectively. This submission is 4 folded. [4.1] Child Labor amendment act 2016
makes complete ban on children employed below 14 years of age. [4.2] Violation of
constitutional provisions [4.3] Violation of provisions relating to child labour in labour laws
[4.4] Not in accordance to International conventions on child labour ratified by India.
[4.1] Child Labor amendment act 2016 makes complete ban on children employed
below 14 years of age.
33. In July 2016, the Parliament has passed the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation)
Amendment Bill, 2016. This act has completely banned employment of children below 14
years of age. This act amends the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 by
24
Executive Engineer, B&C Deptt. Miraj Sangli v. Riyaj Nasir Daryawardi, 2006 LLR 597
25
Gujarat State Road Transport corporation v. Workman of State Transport Corporation, 2000 LLR 182 (GUJ HC)

P a g e | 23
st
widening its scope against child labour. This act has completely banned employment of
children below 14 in all occupations and enterprises. Thus after this amendment there is
complete ban on child employed under 14 years of age and in the instant case 4 workers were
less than 14 years of age thus it comes under the purview of child labour thus state is held
liable for Child Labor.
[4.2] Violation of constitutional provisions
people’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India26, the general understanding was
that the right secured by Article 24 will hardly be effective in the absence of legislation
prohibiting and penalizing its violation. However, in that case the Supreme Court clearly
stated that article 24 “must operate proprio vigour” even if the prohibition laid down in it is
not followed up by appropriate legislation.
34. In spite of the laws on Child Labour, Court in M.C. Mehta v. State of T.N.27, Noted that
menance of child labour was wide spread. Therefore, it issued wide ranging directions in the
context of employment and exploitation of children, prohibiting employment of children
below the age of 14 and making arrangements for their education by creating a fund and
providing employment to the parents or able bodies adults in the family.
35. Thus in this case the UIC is violating the constitutional provisions by practicing child labour
in his undertaking as well as the facts clearly established that the lower courts are silent on
the issue of child labour as they only dealing with the issue of the nature of the employment
of the canteen workers and wages to be paid and reinstatement. So the Hon’ble High Court
was not justified in taking the decision against UIC.
26
(1982) 3 SCC 235: AIR 1982 SC 1473.
27
(1996) 6 SCC 756; Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India (1997) 10 SCC 549: AIR 1997 SC 2218.

P a g e | 24
st
[4.2.1] Fundamental right of education is also violated in this case
36. According to Article 21A of Constitution of India, the State shall endeavor to provide free
and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of 14. It means free
education upto 14 years of age to every child and after 14 years of age right gets
circumscribed by limits of economic capacity; In Bapuji Educational Assn. v. State28,
Ramas Jois J of The Karnataka High Court held that the right of an individual to have and/ or
to impart education is one of the most valuable and sacred rights, and that among the various
types of personal liberties, which can be regarded or included in the expression “personal
liberty” and in Article 21, education is certainly the foremost.
[4.3] Violation of provisions relating to child labour in labour laws.
37. The Factories Act, provides for prohibition of employment of young children and prescribes
working hours for minors. According to section 67 of Factories Act, no child who has not
completed his fourteen years shall be required or allowed to work in any factory. In case of
N. Bhageerathan v. State29it was held that if an accused employer is unable to prove that
children employed were not below 14 years, he can be convicted for the offence of
employing child labour. In M.C. Mehta v. State of T.N.30it was held that children cannot be
employed in the place of manufacture to avoid exposure to accident.
[4.4] Not in accordance to International conventions on child labour ratified by India.
38. It is most humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that India ratified two core
conventions of International Labour Organization (ILO) on child labour, a global
28
AIR 1986 Kant 119; Unni Krishnan, J.P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1993 SC 2178.
29
1999 Cri LJ 632 (Mad).
30
(1991) Cri LJ 632 (Mad).

P a g e | 25
st
commitment to end the worst form of child labour and to ensure minimum basic education to
children. India took giant step to affirm the commitment for a child labour free India by
ratifying the two core conventions of ILO. Convention 138 regarding admission of age to
employment and Convention 182 regarding worst form of child labour. Countries which
ratify any of the ILO Conventions have to go through a periodical reporting system every
four years. So the government has to prove that they are making progress. The ratification of
these conventions will be step ahead in direction of achieving goal of eradication of child
labour from country as it would be legally binding to comply with the provision of the
conventions.
39. Through Child labour, the human rights of a child are also violated, the UDHR article which
is being violated is Article 3 which says everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
person. Many children are being forced to work in places with hazardous conditions and
performing task that jeopardizes their health. Child labour is clearly in contravention of
UDHR. Article 4, Article 23, Article 24 and Article 26 of UDHR are violated by practice of
child labour.
[5] Whether UIC is under obligation to pay the GST?
40. There is an employer employee relationship between UIC and the canteen contractor. The
relationship is statutorily governed under the GST Act. This canteen is run by a contractor
named Bhola Prasad under the supervision of UIC Canteen and Management Committee
(Committee) through a written understanding. The committee ensure the smooth functioning
for anyone who avails the canteen services. The corporation was taking interest in not only
managing the canteen but also in the constitution of the committees for management of the
canteens. In the instant case the facts are adequate to established that the contract is of

P a g e | 26
st
‘contract of service’ because the UIC was using the greater amount of direct control over the
canteen for its functioning by supervising the work by his own committee through a written
understanding. In this case contractor is less independent in taking the decision because the
contractor was working according to the written understanding framed by UIC, even the
price for the canteen product is fixed by the UIC which clearly justify UIC direct control over
the canteen and the workers.
Liability of Both Agent and Principal
S. 86- Where an agent supplies or receives any taxable goods on behalf of his principal, such
agent and his principal shall, jointly and severally, be liable to pay the tax payable on such
goods under this Act. Under the GST law, in cases where – Taxable Goods are supplied by
agent on behalf of principal; or — Taxable Goods are procured by agent on behalf of
principal; the agent is primarily liable for tax. However, by virtue of this provision, both
agent and principal, will be jointly and severally made liable for tax payable on such
supplies. As Bhola Prasad is not able to make any profit, it becomes a duty which is imposed
on UIC and the canteen committee to pay the tax.
(b) Further, Schedule 1 (Entry 2) of GST Act 2017 states that supply between related
persons when made in the course or furtherance of business will be considered as supply
even if it is without consideration. As per Circular No. 28/02/2018-GST 2, the GST charged
at industrial canteen is 18% it is immaterial whether the service is provided by the institution
itself or the institution outsources the activity to an outside contractor.
Therefore, all these statutory provisions make the UIC liable to pay GST.

P a g e | 27
st
PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of facts stated, issues raised, authorities cited and arguments advanced, it
is most humbly prayed on behalf of the petitioner before the Hon’ble Court that it may be
pleased:
1. Declare that the UIC Classification of workers is discriminatory in nature.
2. Hold and Declare that the claim of the Child Labour is valid as per the circumstance.
3. Declare that the Hon'ble High Court of Zafhistan was not justified on the issue of
Reinstatement of the three workers.
4. Order UIC to Pay GST for the smooth functioning of the Statutory canteen.
AND/OR
Pass any other writ, order, or direction which the court may deem fit in the ends of equity,
justice, expediency and good conscience in favour of the Appellants. All of which is respectfully
submitted.
Sd/-
(Counsels on behalf of Appellant & Petitioner)

Appellant Union Surana and Surana SC of Zafhistan

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Appellant Union Surana and Surana SC of Zafhistan

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Page |1

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF ZAFHISTAN

CIVIL APPEAL NO _ OF 2017

UNDER ARTICLE 136 & ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ZAFHISTAN

UNNATI INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION………………………………..RESPONDENT 1

STATE GOVERNMENT OF ZAFHISTAN………………………………RESPONDENT 2

IN THE MATTER CONCERNING UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICES, CHILD LABOUR AND

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT & PETITIONER

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT & PETITIONER

Books & Treaties………………………………………………………………...…........6

[1.1] Doctrine of contract of service is fulfilled in this case…………………………………..14

[1.2] The canteen workers were employees of the company……………………………...…15

[2] WHETHER THE TREATMENT AWARDED TO THE 14 WORKERS IS DISCRIMINATORY IN

[2.2] Doctrine of equal pay for equal work not fulfilled…………………………………..…20

[2.3] Entitled for class IV employees’ wages………………………………………………….20

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT & PETITIONER

[3.1] The retrenchment order was illegal …………………………………………………...21

[3.2] Reinstatement with back wages must be given………………………………….…….22

[3.3] Unfair labour practice by UIC……………………………………………………...…23

[4.2] Violation of constitutional provisions……………………..…………………………….23

[4.3] Violation of provisions relating to child labour in labour laws………………………..23

[4.4] Not in accordance to International conventions on child labour ratified by India…24

[5.1 ] WHETHER UIC IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO PAY THE GST? …………………………… 24

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT & PETITIONER

& And M.P. Madhya Pradesh

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT & PETITIONER

3. Bapuji Educational Assn. v. State AIR 1986 Kant 119. 11

6. Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana (1987) 4 SCC 634 12

16. Gujarat State Road Transport corporation v. Workman of State Transport 24

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT & PETITIONER

22. M.C. Mehta v. State of T.N 1996) 6 SCC 756. 12

23. M.C. Mehta v. State of T.N. (1991) Cri LJ 632 (Mad). 14

34. State of Haryana v Tilak Raj (2003) 6 SCC 123 23

35. State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh (2006) 9 SCC 321; 22

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT & PETITIONER

4. G B Pai, Labour Law in India, VOL. 1-2, Butterworth’s, 2001.

5. Vashishtha Chaudhry, GST A Practical Approach, 3rd EDN., Taxmann, 2017.

6. Abhishek A Rastogi, Professional’s Guide to GST-From Ideation to Reality, 3rd EDN.,

1. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. The Constitution of India, 1950.

3. The Factories Act, 1948.

4. The Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2016.

5. The Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

6. The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1976.

7. Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT & PETITIONER

“Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part-

the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

conferred by this Part.”

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT & PETITIONER

1.Unnati industrial Corporation, has a canteen-cum- food-court facility run by a contractor

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT & PETITIONER

WHETHER UIC AND CANTEEN WORKERS FULFILLED THE EMPLOYER EMPLOYEE

WHETHER THE TREATMENT AWARDED TO THE 14 WORKERS IS DISCRIMINATORY IN NATURE?

WHETHER STATE IS HELD FOR EMPLOYING CHILD LABOUR?

WHETHER UIC IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO PAY THE GST?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT & PETITIONER

canteen workers employee of the principal employer

ISSUE 2- Whether the treatment awarded to the 14 workers is discriminatory in nature?

ISSUE4- Whether State is held for employing child labour?

ISSUE 5: Whether UIC is under obligation to pay the GST?

Committee and hence UIC is liable to pay GST.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT & PETITIONER