SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER Vs. INSPECTOR OF LABOUR(I/C)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the award passed by the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.397/2009, dated 27.12.2013.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

(3.) The case of the Petitioner is that the respondents 2 to 7 never worked as Contract Labourer with the Petitioner Board and as such they have to prove the employee-employer relationship between them and the Petitioner herein. Inspite of the same, the first respondent herein/Inspector of Labour, Tuticorin had passed an award in favour of the respondents which shows the non-application of mind. It is further stated that the respondents 2 to 7 if worked as contract labour with the Petitioner from 1.7.1997 to 30.11.2007, their names would found place in the name in the list of 18,006 contract labourers as per the report of the Honourable Khalid Commission and they would be absorbed in the usual course, as has been done in similarly placed persons like that of the respondents 2 to 7. The first respondent, without adverting to this fact, has passed an award in favour of the respondents 2 to 7, which is liable to be set aside. Further the Petitioner is not aware of the facts/particulars whether the respondents 2 to 7 as to when they join the work as contract labourer, nature of work performed by them and whether they have worked for three years as stated and whether they have worked for 480 days continuously in 24 calendar months. It is further stated that the Junior Engineers had given Experience Certificate only to those persons who worked as Contract Labourers who had actually worked under the contractors and moreover, the junior Engineers are not competent to issue such certificates. Further the contract labourers who are eligible to confer permanent status are identified by the Committee constituted pursuant to the report of the Honourable Justice Khalid Commission for identification for permanent absorption. The respondents 2 to 7 were not identified by the Commission for absorption. Hence the Petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition for the relief stated supra.