FACT Vs. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ Appeals are against the Judgment in O.P. No. 6464/93. Both the petitioners as well as the 1st respondent in the Original Petition have preferred these Writ Appeals. The former is by the 1st respondent company and the latter is by the petitioners workmen.

(2.) The appellants in the Writ Appeal No. 1719/93 will hereafter be described as workmen where as the appellant in W.A. 1381/93 will be described as the employer. The workmen and 34 others were employed in the establishment of the employer since its inception in 1976 through a contractor. These workmen were employed for the work in the establishment of the employer. Because of the perennial nature of the work for which they were being employed and their continuous period of work, they agitated for abolition of contract system of labour. Finally, on the basis of the finding entered into by the State Board appointed in terms of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1978, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", Government issued Ext. P1 notification abolishing the contract system of labour in the establishment of the employer. Ext. P1 is the notification. This was followed by Ext. P2, another notification extending the period until 31st December 1992 to do away with the contract system of labour in the establishment of the employer. The employer did not give direct employment to all the contract workers including the petitioners; instead the employer entered into a settlement Ext. P3, that too with recognised unions of the contract workers, which provided for direct employment immediately of eight persons based on a selection process and employment of certain others made mention of in Annexure A to the said settlement during the course of two years during which the said list was effective. The other contract workers were paid certain monetary benefits calculated on the basis of the formula agreed upon by the management and unions. The workmen have approached this court challenging the said settlement Ext. P3 and seeking a direction that they shall be continued to be employed, even after the abolition of the contract labour system as per Ext. P1 read with Ext. P2, on regular basis in the establishment of the employer.

(3.) The learned single Judge did not accept the contention of the petitioners. The single Judge held that the Act, did not contemplate direct employment of the contract workers on abolition of contract labour by way of notification under S.10(1) of the Act. Therefore, the relief sought for by the workmen was not granted. At the same time, the learned single Judge felt that the settlement which provided for employment on regular basis for only eight workmen or those mentioned in Annexure A to Ext. P3 was not fair and therefore held that depending upon the occurrence of vacancies for the subsequent period, the remaining workers ought to have been provided employment. The first part of the Judgment is challenged by the workmen whereas the latter part of the judgment is challenged by the employer in these Writ Appeals.