POONAM SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner, inter alia, prayed that respondent no.2 i.e. Contract Labour Abolition Board, Ministry of Labour be directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner. Prior to the filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner has filed the representation on 20.7.2001 before respondent no.2. That representation of the petitioner has not been decided by respondent no.2 till date. On 30.10.2001 in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd, & Ors. Vs. National Union of waterfront Workers & Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 1, writ petition that after writ petition was dismissed on 30.10.2001, the that after writ petition was dismissed on 30.10.2001, the respondent on 17.11.2001 terminated the services of the petitioner. This application has been filed by the petitioner for re-instatement of the petitioner in services till final decision is taken by respondent no.2 on the representation of the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has contended that in view of SAIL'S case (supra) where a prohibitory notification has been issued, it is only the Industrial Adjudicator who shall decide about regularisation after considering the various aspects of the matter. Therefore, this application has to be dismissed.

(3.) To my mind the action of the respondent in terminating the services of the petitioner without waiting for Industrial Adjudicator to decide about the status of the petitioner is not the correct method. As a matter of fact, in the present context and in view of the law laid down in SAIL'S case, it is the industrial adjudicator who has to determine as to whether the employee is the employee under the principal employer or under the contractor. If ultimately it is found that the petitioner was employed through the principal employer, petitioner's services have to be regularised in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court in SAIL'S case and if a workman is found to be employed through the contractor, weightage has to be given to the workman who had earlier worked with the principal employer in case any fresh vacancy arises and if the incumbent is otherwise fit. If that is the ratio of SAIL'S case, then till the industrial adjudicator decides the question it will not be in the interest of justice to deprive the petitioner right to her employment with the respondent. Therefore, I direct respondent no.3 to reinstate the petitioner in service. However, a direction is issued to respondent no.2 to expedite the decision on the representation of the petitioner which is pending since July, 2001 within a period of three months. If the industrial adjudicator comes to a finding that the petitioner was an employee of the contractor, it will be open for the respondent to terminate the services of the petitioner.