BUDH RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners were employed contract labourer by Indian Oil Corporation through Respondent No.5. It appears that Delhi Administration issued Notification dated 20.4.1987 under Section 10 of Contract Labour. (Regulation and Abolition,) Act, 1970 prohibiting employment of contract labour in certain processes and based on this petitioners filed this petition seeking their absorption and regularisafcion of their services in the Corporation and for deleration of their continuation as illegal. Their further case was that they were being paid less wages and deprived of other benefits under various laws and that Corporation had also absorbed similarly situated contract labour in the past.

(2.) Respondents 3-4 (Corporation) expectedly opposed this petition on the ground that Notification relief upon by them was not attracted to their case because for them Central Government alone was the appropriate Govt. to issue such Notification. It was also explained by them that through they had absorbed some such labour pursuant to Supreme Court Judgment in WP No.1612/86, they could not drew any analogy from that.

(3.) When this matter was taken up for consideration today, we were informed that Notification dated 20/4/1987 stood quashed by this court in CW 3334/07 on 1/10/96. Moreover, Supreme Court had also, upset its first position enunciated by it in AIR_1997_SC_645 (Air India Statutory Corporation etc. Vs. United Labour Union and Ors.) and in its recent Judgment in 2001(5) SCALE 626 (SAIL & Ors. Vs. National Union water, Eront Workers & Ors.) holding that a notification issued under Section 10 of the Act prohibiting employment of contract labour did not confer any automatic right of absorption on such contract labour in the establishment of principal employer. That takes away the basis of petitioner's case to merit dismissal of this petition. But L/C for petitioner in a last bid effort submitted that contract between R 3-4 and R-5 was a camouflage to deprive petitioners of their legitimate rights. We are not in a position to examine this because this is a new case set up by petitioners. Nor is it for us to examine the nature of contract between these respondents for which they could avail of appropriate remedy under law. This petition is accordingly dismissed leaving petitioners free to take appropriate remedy for redressal of their any further grievance on this score. Their present position as on today shall meanwhile be maintained for six months to enable them to do so.