SANMINA SCI THOZHILALAR SANGAM Vs. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition is directed against the notification published by the third respondent in Dina Thanthi dated 20.2.2011 and for a consequential direction against the third respondent to resolve the workers demand.

(2.) AS per the notification issued by the newspaper, the third respondent asked for applications for appointment of persons on contract basis for Sanmina SCI Electronics Corporation and Nokia Simens Network, situate at Oragadam, fixing the educational qualification as Plus Two, ITI pass for men and women in the age limit between 19 and 28 years on a monthly salary of Rs.5600/- with food and transport facilities free, with a condition to work on contract basis in Nokia calling for applications from men and women who have passed 10th Standard, Plus Two failed in the age group of 19 to 25 years.

(3.) IT is the contention of Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner Union that the very purpose of advertisement is to replace the existing permanent workers by the contract workers and that would amount to unfair labour practice, especially when the demands of the petitioner Union are still pending. He would refer to Schedule I to the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 to show that the conduct of the third respondent would amount to unfair labour practice. IT is his submission that the conduct of the third respondent in indirectly calling for such appointment would amount to the breach of constitutional integrity. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation [(2010) 3 SCC 192] apart from the judgments in Standard Vacuum Refining Company of India Ltd., vs. Their Workmen and another (1960 (2) LLJ 233) and People's Union for Democratic Rights and others vs. Union of India [AIR 1982 SC 1473]. According to the learned counsel, nearly 68 persons have been appointed on contract basis and that will be opposed to law. He would also rely upon the judgment in Jaipur Zila Sahakari Hoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and others [(2002) 2 SCC 244].