TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD WORKERS PROGRESSIVE UNION Vs. TAMIL NADU GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner submits that he is the Circle Secretary of the petitioner Union and its Registration No. is 38/CPT. The petitioner Union is established for the protection of the rights of its members who are working in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The petitioner further submits that 162 members of the petitioner Union are working as contract labourers in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for several years. Though the members of the petitioner Union and the petitioner made several representations requesting to make them permanent in their service, the respondents have not considered their grievance and genuine claim. Therefore, the members of the petitioner Union through the Union Representation filed petitions before the Labour Inspector, Namakkal and Salem under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981. After an elaborate enquiry, the authority under the Act, was pleased to direct the respondents to give permanent status to the members of the petitioner-Union who are working as contract labourers in the Namakkal / Mettur / Salem Electricity Board Distribution Circle. The petitioner further submits that the respondents by the Board Proceedings in B.P.No.9, dated 09.01.2008, had constituted a committee for the purpose of considering the regularization of the services of these contract labourers and the Committee has been directed to decide about the settlement of the said dispute. As per the Board Proceedings, the Committee has to consider the case of contract labourers individually taking note of long services rendered by them as contract labourers and also their experience gained by them. In spite of specific direction in the Board Proceedings, the Committee has not considered the case of the Members of the petitioner Union whose list is annexed in the typed-set, for more than two years.

(2.) The petitioner further submits that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by a common order dated 24.10.2008 in W.A.No.1302 of 2003 (batch) was pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the contract labourers under the 18(1) Settlement. The petitioner further submits that since the respondents did not consider the case of the members of the petitioner-Union as per the B.P.No.9, dated 09.01.2008 for more than eight years, the petitioner-Union was constrained to send a detailed representation dated 28.10.2009 to the respondents requesting the respondents to implement the B.P.No.9, dated 09.01.2008 as per the decision of this Court, dated 24.10.2008 in W.A.No.1302 of 2003 (batch) and make the members of the petitioner-Union as permanent employees of the Board under the provisions of the Section 18(1) Settlement. Though the respondents have received the representation of the petitioner Union, the respondents have not considered the same and have not passed any orders on the same. The petitioner further submits that the petitioner-Union has filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5226 of 2010 praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith direct the Committee constituted as per the Board Proceedings in B.P.No.9 dated 09.01.2008 to complete its enquiry for the purpose of regularizing the services of the Members of the petitioner-Union within a stipulated period by considering and passing orders on the representation of the petitioner-Union, dated 28.10.2009. This Court, by order dated 11.08.2010 was pleased to direct the respondents to place the petitioner's representation dated 28.10.2009 before the Committee, to consider the case of the Contract Labourers mentioned in the representation for absorption as per the B.P.No.9 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of 10 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order.

(3.) The petitioner further submits that the petitioner has sent the copy of the order to the respondents by RPAD on 02.09.2010 and the respondents have also received the same on 14.09.2010. Though the time granted by this Court had expired on 28.11.2010, the respondents did not obey the orders of this Court and did not pass orders for absorption of the Members of the petitioner-Union. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a contempt petition No.1734 of 2010. After taking notice in the contempt petition and after getting several adjournments, the respondents produced a copy of the order dated 10.08.2011 before this Court on 11.08.2011 stating that the Committee has decided not to regularize the services of 13 persons who have break in service for more than three months and 79 persons who have not at all worked in the Board. After receiving the order dated 10.08.2011, this Court was pleased to close the Contempt Petition No.1734 of 2010 with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order of the second respondent. The impugned order of the respondents dated 10.08.2011 is totally arbitrary, unreasonable and against the provisions of B.P.No.9, dated 09.01.2008 and also against the decisions of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 24.10.2008 in W.A.No.1302 of 2003 (batch). It is also against the proceedings of the respondents dated 20.02.2008 and proceedings of the respondents dated 04.03.2008, 21.07.2009 and 12.05.2010. In the proceedings dated 20.02.2008, the respondents have stated that as per the order dated 13.09.2007, the number of contract labourers to be absorbed shall not exceed 21,600 and the Officers who engage the contract labourers in excess as permitted by the Board will be personally liable for the consequences. Therefore, the Officers, in obedience to the order of the Chairman, dated 13.09.2007, refused to engage the contract labourers in excess of the numbers permitted by the Board.