BUDDHADEV MAITY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner no.1, being the Secretary of the Haldia Refinery (Mechanical/Maintenance) Contractors Workmen Union and the petitioners no.2 to 18 seek quashing of the orders dated 23rd December, 2002 and 2nd June, 1992 of the Central Government made in exercise of powers under Section 10 of The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, deciding not to prohibit employment of contract labour in normal maintenance, repair or emergency shut down and operation works in the Mechanical Division of Haldia Refinery. The petitioners also seek a writ directing the Central Government to issue a notification prohibiting Contract Labour Work System at Haldia Refinery of the respondent no.2 Indian Oil Corporation (IOC). The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondent no.2 IOC to, in the event of employing workers for operations and other works of Haldia Refinery, give preference to the members of the petitioner no.1 Union and the petitioners no.2 to 18.

(2.) Notice of the petition was issued on 3rd September, 2003. Though the petitioners had filed CM No.10936/2003 seeking interim directions restraining the respondent IOC from terminating the jobs of the petitioners, but the said application was dismissed as not pressed on 27th July, 2004. Rule was also issued in the writ petition on the same date. The counsels for the petitioners, for the respondent IOC and for the respondent Union of India have been heard.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent IOC for its Haldia Refinery, has been appointing labour through contractors/labour suppliers for a particular period and on expiry of such period appoints new contractors/labour suppliers afresh but the employment and engagement and job allotment of the members of the petitioners Union and the petitioners remains undisturbed. The petitioners claim that they have been so engaged for long for doing duties as casual/helpers in the shops, divisions and departments in the Haldia Oil Refinery and are performing various duties and functions relating to production, maintenance and transport etc. in the Refinery. They further claim that though they have been engaged through labour contractors, they continue to perform their duties under the direct control and supervision of the management of the Refinery; that the engagement through a contractor is only a paper arrangement in order to escape the liabilities under various labour laws and that their employment is under the absolute financial and other controls of the respondent IOC. The petitioners further claim that the jobs being performed by them are of a perennial nature and the respondent IOC by adopting the aforesaid device is making the petitioners living in uncertainty and fear of insecurity of job. Though there are other pleadings in this regard but it is not necessary for the present purposes to record the same herein.