CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR Vs. FACT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners were contract labourers engaged in the process of handling and moving of raw materials in the factory premises of first respondent company at its Cochin Division. There were in all 46 labourers who were engaged through a contractor. These labourers were represented by two trade unions, namely (i) Materials and Products Loading and Unloading Workers Union, and (ii) Raw Materials Loading and Unloading Workers Congress, the first petitioner being the Secretary of the latter Union. The case of the petitioners can be stated thus: pursuant to the judgment of this court in W.A. No. 349/91, the problems of the contract labourers in the first respondent company were referred to the State Advisory Board by the Government. The Board after considering all aspects of the problem recommended to the Government to prohibit employment of contract labour in the F.A.C.T., Cochin Division. Thereupon the Government by notification dated 6th March 1992 prohibited employment of contract labour engaged in the process of handling and moving of raw materials of rock phosphate and sulphur inside the factory premises of the company. Ext. P-1 is a copy of the aforesaid notification. The first respondent company thereafter applied to the Government for adequate time for finalising the modalities for the implementation of Ext. P1. Ultimately, by Ext. P2 dated. 17th October 1992 the Government, in exercise of power conferred by S.31 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') ordered that the provisions of the said Act regarding the abolition of the contract labour shall not apply to the Cochin Division of the F.A.C.T., till 31st December, 1992 in so far as the employment of contract labour engaged in the process of handling and moving of raw materials. The first respondent company was obliged to absorb and regularise the petitioners and other contract labourers immediately after 31st December, 1992. However, the second respondent held joint conference at his office on 24th November, 1992 and 6th January 1993. In this conference the first respondent company and the Secretaries of the Unions were participated. The first petitioner and others strongly demanded for immediate implementation of Ext. P-1 order and absorption of contract labourers into the regular service of the company. Notwithstanding this, the first respondent company had made a Memorandum of Settlement, evidenced by Ext. P3. Ext. P3 is being challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) The case of the respondent company is this: The Government as per Ext. P-2 had granted time till 31st December 1992 for working out modalities for implementation of the Government order prohibiting employment of . contract labour. However, on the basis of the representation made by the Trade Unions a meeting was convened by the second respondent. After series of conferences a consensus was arrived at on 6th January 1993 among all parties regarding the absorption of some of the contract workers as a result of which eight workers were absorbed on 12th March 1992. The names of the remaining workers were included in the select list for appointment within two years from the date of publication of the select panel. It Was further agreed that persons who were not absorbed would be given an ex gratia payment equivalent to 45 days' wages for every, completed year of service. Ext. R-1(A) is a copy of the agreement arrived at by the parties present in the conference held on 6th January 1993. The first petitioner is one of the persons present throughout the conference held on 6th January 1993 and he represented at the conference on behalf of the workmen. Ext. P-3 agreement arrived at between the parties is valid and binding on all the persons concerned.

(3.) Two contentions are , raised by the petitioners. They are: (1) In view of the abolition of the contract labour pursuant to Ext. P-1 notification the labourers are liable to be absorbed automatically in the regular employment by the company, and (2) Ext. P-3 agreement is null and void, and therefore the labourers should be treated as workmen directly employed by the company.