RAMESHBHAI SHANTILAL HARIJAN Vs. COMMISSIONERER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. V.B. Gerania, AGP for respondent No. 1, Mr. N.V. Anjaria for respondent No. 2 and Mr. G.M, Joshi for respondent No. 3 learned advocates waive service of Rule on behalf of respective respondents.

(2.) The 12 petitioners-workmen are working in the township belonging to respondent No. 2. In the said township respondent No. 2 is running 3 schools, a club for the recreation of its employees and is having about 3000 houses. The petitioners are engaged for lifting the garbage of this township and putting the same in the trucks so as to remove the same out of the township. It is the case of the petitioners that they are shown on paper to be the workmen engaged through the Labour contractor-respondent No. 3. According to them said contract is not genuine and correct and that they want the abolition of the said contract. They accordingly filed a complaint through Bharatiya Mazdoor Sabha-the union of the workman on 9.6.1997 before the respondent No. 3 requesting him to make a reference to the State Labour Advisory Board as well as the Industrial Tribunal, but no action on the same has been taken. Again reminders were sent on 11.9.1997 and 16.1.1998. But neither the reminders are replied nor any action is taken by the respondent No. 3. Therefore, they have come before this court and they are seeking the following reliefs as per para No. 17 of the petition.

(3.) Respondeni No. 2 has contested the claim of the petitioners by filing affidavit in reply. Respondent No. 2 contended that the interim relief which this court has granted ought not to have been granted. They further contended that the settlement under Sec. 12 (3) read with Sec. 18 (3) of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 was entered into between respondent No. 2 corporation and the contractors and four trade unions representing the contract labourers and present respondent No. 3 was one of the contractors to the said settlement. As per the said settlement, the corporation-respondent No. 2 had agreed to absorb 1604 labourers from January, 1996 to 2000 in a phased manner. Therefore, in view of the said settlement, present petition is not tenable. It is further contended that the claim of the petitioner that the contract is a sham and comouflage is not correct. It is further contended that the contract between respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for 1997-98, admittedly, has come to an end on 30.6.1998. It is contended by the respondent No. 2 that the petitioners are the employees of the contractor-respondent No. 3 and not of the respondent No. 2 Indian Petro Chemical Corporation and consequently they are not entitled to get any relief against the respondent No. 2. Thus it is contended by respondent No. 2 that present petition is not tenable and that the same should be dismissed.