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.