BIJLI MAZDOOR PANCHAYAT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayers made in para 10 (AAA) are not pressed. Other prayers as contained in an amendment dated 19-12-1995 moved by Mr. Shahani, learned Counsel for the petitioner are also not pressed. This Special Civil Application has been filed by Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat on behalf of the workmen enlisted in Annexure 'A' filed with the Special Civil Application. It is submitted that all these workmen enlisted in Annexure 'A' were working with respondent No. 4 who was holding the contract labour of the Gujarat Electricity Board. The period of contract of respondent No. 4 was to be over on 30-9-1995 and respondent No. 5 was given contract by the Gujarat Electricity Board for a period of one year commencing from 1-10-1995 (sic). Respondent No. 4, therefore, terminated the services of these workmen as his contract period was going to be over on 30-9-1995. The present Special Civil Application was filed on 28-9-1995 and on 29-9-1995 notice returnable by 5-10-1995 was issued. While filing Special Civil Application respondent No. 5 was not impleaded as party and he was impleaded as respondent later on, i.e., on 6-10-1995. The grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner union was that the employees enlisted in Annexure "A" were working with respondent No. 4 for Gujarat Electricity Board for number of years, i.e., for a period of 7 to 8 years and they could not be rendered jobless at this stage and while giving contract to respondent No. 5, the Gujarat Electricity Board ought to have put the condition in the contract entered with respondent No. 5 that respondent No. 5 would carry the burden of the employees who are working with respondent No. 4 for Gujarat Electricity Board. However, the fact remains that no such term was included in the terms of the contract between Gujarat Electricity Board and respondent No. 5. After the returnable date 5-10-1995 the matter came up before the Court several times but learned Counsel representing respondent No. 5 at that time having sought time on 18-10-1995 did not appear on the subsequent dates. Even on 6-11-1995 when the matter came up before the Court no one appeared on behalf of respondent No. 5. After hearing the learned Counsels who were present representing other parties Rule was issued and made returnable on 27-11-1995 and an order was passed that respondent No. 5 shall allow the members of the Bijli Mazdoor Panchayat enlisted in Annexure "A" to continue in service as they were continuing under respondent No. 4 prior to 30-9-1995 with a liberty to respondent No. 5 to apply for vacation/ modification of the order after complying with the order passed by this Court on that date and after filing parawise reply to the main Special Civil Application. Against this order dated 6-11-1995 passed by this Court a Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by respondent No. 5 being No. 1063 of 1995 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 11-12-1995. However, the fact remains that direction dated 6-11-1995 to allow the workmen enlisted in Annexure "A" to continue in service with respondent No. 5 was complied with on 18-11-1995 and it is given out by Mr. Shahani that 23 out of 27 workmen enlisted in Annexure "A" reported before respondent No. 5 and they are continuing. As against this Mr. Buch, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 has contested this Special Civil Application and has submitted that 9 out of 27 workmen did not report on duty and only 18 workmen out of 27 included in Annexure "A" are working with respondent No. 5.

(2.) In the main Special Civil Application, the prayer was made that respondent No. 1, i.e., State of Gujarat be directed to refer the demand of abolition of the contract labour to State Contract Labour Advisory Board and the Board may decide the reference within certain period as has been mentioned in prayer (A) and further that respondent No. 2, i.e., Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ahmedabad be directed to conduct the inquiry under Sec. 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to ensure that the employees become members of the provident fund immediately. Later on, an amendment was moved on 19- 12-1995 by the petitioner union and through this amendment a further direction is sought to make reference with regard to the demands referred by the petitioner in para 7(C) of the petition before appropriate Tribunal/Court. Besides this a further prayer has been made to seek compliance of certain provisions of the Indian Factories Act through Inspector of Factories and to launch prosecution. This amendment was granted on 19-12-1995.

(3.) Now while the pleadings from both the sides are said to be complete except with regard to the amendment dated 19-12-1995 which is mainly an amendment to include some more clauses, it was submitted by all the sides that in the facts of the case, the whole matter may be disposed of at this stage.