Harihar Singh Munda and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—I.A. No. 2993 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioners praying for an interim order for protecting the interest of the petitioner for their continuous engagement as security personnel.

Sri Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel for the petitioner would explain that during the pendency of this writ application, the respondent No. 2 has issued a fresh Notice Inviting Tender, inviting applications from established security agencies for deployment of security personnel. Thereafter the respondents have engaged the services of an agency namely M/s. Polular Sainik Security Agency and have executed a contract of engagement with the aforesaid agency on 14.09.2009 without specifying any conditions therein to ensure the engagement of the petitioners under the aforesaid agency.

Sri Rajiv Ranjan would explain that the petitioners being ex-army men, have been rendering their services as security personnel under the respondents. Initially, the services of the petitioners were directly engaged by the respondents but later, by way of a revised arrangement, established security agencies have been given to deploy the security personnel. Learned Counsel informs that large number of ex-army men have been rendering services as security personnel since the past several years and had demanded for their permanent absorption in service. When the demand was not considered, the dispute was referred to the Central Administrative Tribunal. The issue is still under active consideration of the concerned authorities at the Central Government Level.

Learned Counsel adds that when the respondents had sought to outsource the deployment of the security personnel to private agencies, the security personnel had expressed their apprehensions that by such outsourcing, their services may not be engaged by the private agency. Such apprehensions were expressed by the petitioner in an earlier writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 2348 of 2000 (R) which was filed by the Bokaro Steel Workers Union representing the contract labourers. Upon considering the apprehensions, while disposing of the writ application, this Court had observed that till the claim of the labourers regarding their absorption/regularization of service is not finally adjudicated by the concerned court/tribunal, the management shall not remove these labourers at the instance of the contractors and even if the new contractors are engaged, the management shall ensure that these labourers who have been working for the last 25-30 years shall continue to work under the new contractors. The management was accordingly directed to put condition in the Notice Inviting Tenders to this effect.

Learned Counsel submits further that after the disposal of the aforementioned writ application in the case of Bokaro Steel Workers Union and a similar writ application filed by the ex-service men against the present management of the respondent CSIR, an agreement was entered into between the management and the Union representing the ex-service men working under the respondent CSIR under which certain specific terms and conditions were incorporated, including a condition under which the CSIR would continue to remain as the Principal employer of the ex-service men.

Learned Counsel submits that while issuing the NIT, inviting tenders from private agencies with intent to replace the earlier engaged agency, the respondents did not specify any condition in order to ensure that the present petitioners should continue to be engaged by the new agency. Leaned counsel submits that it is in this context that the petitioners, entertaining the same apprehensions, seek an order of interim protection for ensuring that the services of the petitioners be engaged by the new contractor.

A reply to the Interlocutory Application has been filed on behalf of the respondents.

Learned Counsel for the respondents would submit at the outset that the present writ application of the petitioners has become infructuous and as such, it is liable to be dismissed. Learned Counsel explains that the initial prayer in this writ application of the petitioner was for quashing the NIT dated 12.09.2007 issued by the respondents for deployment of the contract labourers for security works. Upon the issuance of the impugned NIT and after receiving tenders, the services of M/s. International Security Organization, Kolkata was engaged. The aforesaid agency did engage the services of the present petitioners during the entire period of the contract and as such, petitioners did avail the benefit of their continuous engagement under the aforementioned contractor. Thus, the grievance of the petitioners against the NIT dated 12.09.2007 does not survive any more. Learned Counsel adds that the NIT referred to by the petitioners in this Interlocutory Application in fact quotations invited from the D.G.R. sponsored agencies after the expiry of the contract period with the earlier agency. Learned Counsel explains further that the new agency namely M/s. Popular Sainik Security Agency which has now been engaged by the respondents, has not refused to engage the services of the present petitioners. Rather, the agency has invited applications for employment even from the petitioners also and as such, the petitioners cannot claim that they have been denied or deprived in any manner from engagement of their services by the new agency. In fact, when a dispute in this context was raised by the association of the ex-service men representing the petitioners also, a decision was taken at the intervention of the district administration, Dhanbad under which it was made obligatory on the part of the new agency namely M/s. Popular Sainik Security Agency to allow the ex-service men, including the present petitioners, to fill up the requisite application forms for their recruitment under the agency.

Learned Counsel adds that the observations recorded by this Court in the earlier writ application vide C.W..I.C. No. 2348 of 2000 (R) would not strictly apply to the petitioners in view of the fact that the observations have been made on consideration of the fact that the writ petitioners had continuously worked as contract labourers for more then 25-30 years whereas none of the present set of petitioners have worked for such long periods.

Upon hearing the rival submissions and from the facts stated, it appears that even though a fresh quotation was invited by the respondents and the services of the new agency has been engaged, and even though no specific condition was included in the terms of agreement for continued engagement of the ex-service men including the present petitioners, yet, pursuant to an assurance given to the ex-service men, albeit under the intervention of the administrative authority of the district, offer has been given to the ex-service men, including the petitioners, to submit their respective applications. It is informed that the submission of the applications in the prescribed format by the aspirants, is by way of a legal requirement which the petitioners, if they choose to be engaged in the new agency, would have to submit.

It appears that the main apprehension of the present petitioners is that by the engagement of new agency/labour contractor, from time to time, it may lead to the inference of break in continuous service and this would have its adverse effect on the claim of the ex-service men for their absorption in regular service under the respondents. If such is the nature of apprehensions, then the petitioners could invite the attention of the concerned authorities before whom the issue relating to the demand for regularization/absorption of the petitioners, is presently pending.

Thus, even if no specific condition was stipulated in the agreement with the new agency for ensuring the continuous engagement of the ex-service men by the new contractor, yet the ex-service men do not appear to have lost ground in view of the assurance obtained, albeit through the intervention of the District administrative authorities, for their engagement under the services of the new contractor. The petitioners therefore do not need to entertain any apprehensions of discontinuance of their engagement. Since the matter relating to their claim for absorption is pending consideration before the concerned authorities, if the petitioners feel still aggrieved on the ground that they may be deprived from the benefits of the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement entered into between the management and petitioners in the year 2005, they may invite attention of the concerned authorities before whom their claim for absorption is pending, for appropriate orders.

With these observations, I.A. No. 2993 of 2009 is disposed of.