RAJEEV BARTHWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 21.3.2001 (Annexure P -l) passed by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, where by the dispute reside by the petitioner was refused from being referred for adjudication to the Labour Court.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioner was employed in Forest Research Institute, Dehradun in perennial nature of work since 1.5.99. However, just to deprive the petitioner of his service benefits, the said institute introduced camoufledge and contract system whereby the petitioner as shown engaged under a contractor for his services. It is alleged that petitioner was working as Account Clerk with the respondent No. 3 w.e.f. 1.5.1999 but his engagement was shown through responde.: No. 4 i.e. M/s. Eagle Hunter Solutions Ltd. Copy of the State agreement as Annexure P -2 to the writ petition. During the service period, the petitioner remained under control and administration of respondent No. 3 i.e. Forest Research Institute (for brevity FRI) and was getting salary of Rs. 2,376/ -. On 8.6.2002 petitioner moved an application to respondent No. 3 for increase in his salary in alternative for regularizing his services. A Union named as FRI Mazdoor Union, Dehradun raised industrial dispute through an application dated 12.11.2001 for the rcgularisation of the services of the petitioner. The said application of the Union was forwarded to the Conciliation Officer and Central Assistant Labour Commissioner, who directed despondent Nos. 3 and 4 to settle the issue and also fixed 20.11.2001 for conciliation in his office. The petitioner continued to work till 14.11.2001 whereafter verbally the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 refused to accept the services of the petitioner as did not permit him to join his duties. On this, petitioner moved an application Under Section 13A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 19.11.2001. The respondents filed their reply before the said authority. The Assistant Labour Commissioner submitted his report to the Government that no amicable settlement was possible on which respondent No. 1 again started conciliation proceedings before the Regional Labour Commissioner, Kanpur where even after several dates being fixed no result came out and the proceedings were closed on 14.2.2002. Consequently, impugned order dated 21.3.2003 was passed informing that the dispute cannot be referred for adjudication to the Labour Court op t,he ground that the workman (petitioner) lctt the job of his own and the contractor was ready to place the workman in other branches, where the vacancy exists. The petitioner has challenged the order declining to refer the dispute to the Labour Court on the ground that he was a regular employee as Account Clerk of the FRI and not working under contractor. It is further alleged in the writ petition that the C.C.S.C.C.A. Rules prohibit the engagement of contract employee Also it is alleged that as per the principle of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rourkela Shramik Sangh v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., 2003 SLR 251, as veil should be lifted to see the controversy if the person is actually working under a contractor.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 4 i.e. M/s. Eagle Hunter Solutions (P) Ltd. has filed its own counter affidavit in which it has been stated that petitioner being an employee of respondent No. 4 was entrusted the duties at the places where there was work on contract. Respondent No. 4 had worked with the FRI only for one year, where after all the workers including the petitioner were withdrawn by the respondent No. 4. Defending the impugned order challenged by the petitioner it is stated that by raising the industrial dispute petitioner cannot compel the respondent No. 4 or respondent No. 3 to engage him in the Institute, where the work on contract was already over.