R.K. Panda & Ors Vs. Steel
Authority of India & Ors [2000] INSC 477 (13 September 2000)
S. RAJENDRA BABU, J. & D.P. MOHAPATRA, J.
J U D G M E N T RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
L.I.TJ 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 :-
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 viding 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
contract labour issued on 30.3.1989 and amended on 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.
Back