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

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 -Union further submits that however, in the order dated 20.02.2008, the respondents pursuant to the interim order of this Court directed the Officers to engage the contract labourers who are covered by the orders of the Inspector of Labour but not covered by the 12(3) settlement and it has been further ordered by the respondents that several contract labourers who are not covered by the 12(3) settlement dated 10.08.2007 and who have been engaged as contract labourers on "Need basis" for number of years may also be continued to be engaged as contract labourers on "Need basis" on daily wages of Rs. 70/ -. Though the respondents have passed this order dated 20.02.2008, directing their subordinates to engage the contract labourers including the members of the petitioner -Union and who are not covered by the 12(3) settlement on "Need basis", the subordinate officers of the respondents, in view of the earlier order dated 13.09.2007 of the Chairman, refused to engage the said 13 Nos. and 64 Nos. Members of the petitioner -Union whose names have been listed for reasons best known to them from 13.09.2007. However the said persons have continuously worked for the period from 1997 to 13.09.2007, that is, nearly 10 years.