AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru
Unfortunately the petitioners in these Writ Petitions are Sweepers/Sanitary Workers engaged by BHEL at their plant at Ranipet. In these Writ
Petitions, the petitioners seek for disposal of their representation dated 7.11.2011 sent by the petitioners by which they seek for regularization of
their service, pursuant to their initial appointment made on 1.4.1987.
It is not clear as to how the petitioners can seek for a direction to the Directorate of Industries and Commerce in respect of their service
grievance and when the power solely vests with the BHEL Limited, which is a Central Government owned Company. It is an autonomous body
and only it has to decide the grievances projected by the petitioners. In any event, by their own admission, it is found that they were engaged
through one Industrial Cooperative Society. In which event, the remedy open to the petitioners is to seek from appropriate remedy before the
Industrial Forum with reference to their service grievances.
It must noted that initially the Central Government by its notification dated 9.12.1976 prohibited the engagement of contract labour in the
process of sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by establishments in respect of which the appropriate
Government is the Central Government. However, the said Notification came to be set aside by the Supreme Court as without jurisdiction, vide
the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others etc. etc. Vs. National Union Water Front
Workers and Others etc. etc., . In that case, the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation, etc. Vs. United Labour
Union and others [overruled], was set aside. The Supreme Court clearly held that in case of a person seeks either for abolition of the contract
labour or that the engagement of such labour was a camouflage to deprive the legitimate rights of the workman, the remedy open to them is to raise
an industrial dispute. In such an event, they will have to prove that the contract was sham and nominal. Otherwise they would seek for abolition of
contract labour u/s 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
Initially there was a doubt as to whether the BHEL was an establishment under the control of the Central Government. However, in the Steel
Authority of India''s case, it has been clarified that if the establishment do not come within Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, the appropriate Government
is only the State Government.
In respect of BHEL at Tiruchirapalli, they also moved the Court seeking for regularization on the ground that the State Government issued a
Notification abolishing contract labour in respect of sweeping vide a Notification issued in the year 1988. Even that Notification was set aside by
the Supreme Court vide its judgment in L and T Mc. Neil Ltd. etc. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, . Therefore the only option open to such
workers who are engaged through Cooperative Society is to raise a dispute or seek for abolition of contract system. On the other hand, the
petitioners herein on being wrongly advised have sent representations to an authority under the State Government, who has no power to intervene
in any service dispute with reference to BHEL, as the said BHEL do not come under the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent. Therefore, after
sending a representation to a wrong authority and asking for their regularization is only a misnomer. It does not lead the case of the petitioner to
anywhere.
The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon an order passed by this Court in W.P.No.26065 OF 2011 and 26066 of 2011 dated
11.11.2011. In that case, the learned Judge of this Court without going into the merits of the case gave a direction to the State Government''s
officer to consider the representation of the petitioner. The said order does not lay down any proposition of law and do not take into account the
entire history behind the contract labour abolition in the process of sweeping in BHEL Limited.
The learned counsel for the petitioners is well advised to inform his clients that they should seek for a genuine remedy, which will give them the
relief and not to take a gardenpath without getting relief to them. The Writ Petitions are misconceived and bereft of legal reasoning. This Court is
not inclined to give direction to the authority, who cannot deal with the problem of the petitioners.
Hence, all the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. No costs.