CENTRAL ORGANISATION OF TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY EMPLOYEES, REP BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Central Organistion of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Employees seeking for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay to the workmen purportedly employed on contract basis in Ennore, North Chennai, Mettur and Tuticorin thermal power stations the bonus and exgratia as ordered by the Board Proceedings dated 9.10.1998 in B.P. No.250.

(2.) The petitioners contend that the Board without any justification employed number of workers on contract basis with the object of exploiting the cheap labour. In fact, the petitioners account for 50% of the total employees employed by the Board. When the petitioner union raised a question of abolition of contract labour, the Board came up with a solution that they can be employed through Industrial Co-operative Service Society (INDCOSERVE). Pursuant to the efforts taken by the petitioner union, the issue of abolition of contract labour was considered by the Advisory Board. The Sub-committe recommended abolition of contract labour. However, no orders were issued for abolition of contract labour. With the result, the petitioner union filed W.P.No.555 of 1990 under Article 32 of the Constitution for direction to the Government to issue the notification under Contract Labour Act (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, hereinafter called the Act. Subsequently, the Government in G.O.Ms.No.950 (Labour and Employment Department) dated 8.8.1990 abolished the engagement of contract labour in 19 wings of the respondents. The licence given to INDCOSERVE was also cancelled. However, inspite of the same, the Board was continuing their operations by extracting the work only from the workmen engaged by the two societies and contractors.

(3.) It is further contended that the petitioners had filed W.P. No.8866 of 1992 praying for Mandamus to direct the respondents to pay wages to workmen employed by INDCOSERVE at the same rate as paid to the helper category and to extend the other service benefits. Though the Writ Petition came to be dismissed, in W.A. No.1373 of 1993 filed by the petitioners, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the Writ Appeal after observing that the workmen were entitled to be placed in the last available category viz., helper, and be paid wages in terms of the Payment of Wages Act. A settlement under Section 18(1) of the I.D. Act was also entered into between the petitioner union and the first respondent on 8.7.1998. By proceedings dated 27.7.1998, the first respondent had directed that the orders of this Court in W.A. No.1373 of 1993 should be implemented. However, as the said judgment is applicable only to the employees of INDCOSERVE, the petitioner union represented that they should also be given the same benefits as they are similarly placed. By proceedings dated 27.7.1998, the first respondent had directed that the purported contract workers in the four thermal stations may be paid the same wages as applicable to helpers.