Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
R.K. PANDA & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/09/2000
BENCH:
S. RAJENDRA BABU, J. & D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
Writ Petition (C) No. 617 of 1986 was filed on the
allegation that the petitioners were continuing in
employment for periods ranging from 10 to 20 years under
different contractors and they are contract labourers. The
contractors, though used to be changed, had to employ the
workers of the predecessor contractors subject to the
requirement of the job being a condition of the term of the
contract and they were discharging jobs which are perennial
in nature and identical to the jobs which are being done by
the regular employees of the respondent. Therefore, it was
urged that they were entitled to be paid the same wages as
regular employees and ought to be treated similarly. It was
only to defeat their claims and other labourers similarly
situated that they were being designated as contract
labourers. These matters were examined by this Court at
length and by an order made on May 12, 1994 the Court
directed absorption in the employment of the respondent of
labourers who have been initially engaged through
contractors but have been continuously working with the
respondent for the last 10 years on different jobs assigned
to them in spite of replacement or change of contractors
subject to their being found medically fit and they are
below 58 years of age with certain other incidental reliefs.
It was made clear that this direction shall be operated only
in respect of 142 jobs out of 246 jobs in view of the fact
that contract labour for 104 jobs had been abolished. In
the course of the said order this Court also noticed that
normally it would not exercise its jurisdiction under
Article 32 or Article 136 of the Constitution, but relegate
the parties to remedies available under Industrial Disputes
Act. However, certain extraordinary circumstances were
noticed by this Court and, therefore, the aforesaid relief
was granted. The aforesaid directions were given after
noticing that contract labourers had been employed in 246
jobs in the steel plant, out of which 104 jobs have been
identified in which contract labour has been abolished,
while in 142 jobs the contract labour is still continuing
and the contract labourers who might have ceased to be
working with the respondent are continuing by different
interim orders of the court and in respect of such employees
an order was made by the Court on 6.8.1992 to the following
effect :-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
Mr. Harish Salve learned counsel appearing for the
respondent states that there are 879 workmen holding
notified jobs with the management. According to him the
management is prepared to give options to all of them either
to accept voluntary retirement on the terms offered by the
management or agree to be absorbed on the regular basis in
the employment of the respondent-management. The offer made
by Mr. Salve is fair and is acceptable to the learned
counsel for the petitioner. We, therefore, modify the
interim orders passed by this Court till date to the extent
that we permit the respondent- management to give the
offered options to all the notified workmen.
Now in these proceedings an application is made to the
Court by 104 workmen seeking a direction to take them back
in regular employment with effect from 1.10.1992 or
1.4.1993, that is, the date from which other workmen were
regularised pursuant to the order made on 6.8.1992 or on
31.12.1994. The applicants allege that:
a) 104 workmen who were employed through contractors in
miscellaneous and petty jobs in the Fertilizer Plant and the
guarding job in Steel Township who were continuously working
since the 1970s have been thrown out of employment from
31.12.1996 and are on the streets since them awaiting
justice.
b) That this has been despite the fact that it was known
to the Management that the contract labour in these jobs had
been abolished vide notification dated 30.3.1989. Only
there was some mistake in the nomenclature of these jobs
though it was well known to the Management as to which
workmen were identified.
c) That despite the undertaking of the Management to
offer regular employment of the workmen involved in these
104 jobs, these 104 workmen worked in those jobs were not
offered employment. Even after this Honble Courts
judgment that those workmen who have been working
continuously for 10 years as contract labours will be
absorbed, these workmen were not absorbed and have been
retrenched on 31.12.1996 even though they have been working
for more than 15 years.
d) That it has been found very clearly and categorically
by the State Contract Labour Advisory Board that the
Management had terminated the services of these workmen for
malafide reasons and has employed new workmen under
different contractors for doing the same job. This was done
even after the Management knew full well that this
notification regarding the nomenclature of these jobs was
going to be amended.
e) That the workmen have not been taken back despite the
latest notification of 17.12.98 amending the original
nomenclature for these jobs and clearly identifying the
jobs.
Their claim is that they are workmen in notified jobs
Nos. 79, 80, 81 and 103 of the notification abolishing the@@
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
contract labour issued on 30.3.1989 and amended on@@
JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
17.12.1998. In the notification dated 30.3.1989 jobs at
serial Nos. 79, 80 and 81 were showed to be Cleaning and
serial No. 103 Survey Work. On the basis of the report
made by the Deputy Labour Commissioner that there are no
such jobs in existence during the relevant time of the
issuance of the Government notification issued under Section
10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,
1970, an amendment was made by a notification issued on May
9, 1995 modifying the description of jobs as aforesaid.
Thereafter on December 17, 1998 yet another notification was
issued to the same effect pursuant to a report made by the
State Advisory Contract Labour Board.
When the matter was pending before this Court several
directions have been given by this Court including the one
made on 6.8.1992 to which we have adverted to wherein 879
workmen holding notified jobs were given the option either
to take voluntary retirement or to get absorbed on regular
basis. However, the matter was finally disposed of by
making it clear that the direction issued in the case will
be applicable only in respect of 142 jobs out of 246 jobs in
view of the fact that contract labour has been abolished in
respect of 104 jobs. Cause of action, if any, for the
petitioner has arisen by their alleged retrenchment made on
31.12.1996. In the circumstances, particularly when in
respect of certain employees, industrial dispute had also
been raised and a settlement had been reached pursuant to
which an award is made, if the applicants were aggrieved
they should have adopted that course as indicated by this
Court to be the normal course and what other employees have
adopted in the Industrial Dispute Case No. 16 of 1996.
Therefore, we think that it would not be appropriate to
allow this application, but it is made clear that it is
appropriate for the applicants to work out their remedies if
available under relevant labour enactments or otherwise, if
any. The application stands accordingly rejected.