BHUVANESWARI P Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS seek a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the second respondent to continue the employment of the petitioners and to regularise their services in the second respondent establishment with all attendant consequential monetary and other benefits.

(2.) ACCORDING to Mr. R. Viduthalai, learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners 1 to 10 were employed by the fifth respondent, who is a licensee in respect of telephone booths with I. S. D. /s. TD, facility, situated at International Airport, Chennai, which is controlled by the second respondent from December 1993, June 1994, April 1993, December 1995, March 1996, May 1996, February 1996, August 1993, May 1996 and August 1995 respectively. Petitioners were employed in continuous service for a period of 480 days in 24 calendar months, and therefore, they are entitled for regularisation of their services with conferment of permanent status under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act. It is contended that, even though the fifth respondent is the immediate employer, the second respondent is the Principal Employer of the petitioners, as the telecom services is one of the basic essential facilities to be provided by the second respondent in the international airport premises, but for which, the second respondent could not have the international status. It is further contended that since the petitioners were employed through the fifth respondent, who is running the telephone booths in pursuance of the licence issued by the second respondent, in view of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the second respondent is prohibited to engage the petitioners as contract labourers, and consequently, their services have to be regularised by a statutory implication. Mr. R. Viduthalai, learned counsel for the petitioners, further contends that Section 2 (b) of the Act creates a legal fiction to deem a workman as a contract labour employed in or in connection with the work of an establishment when he is hired in or in connection with such work by or through a contractor with or without the knowledge of the principal employer. Learned counsel for the petitioners, further contends that the second respondent is the principal employer as per Section 2 (g) (i) of the Act. It is immaterial whether the petitioners were employed by the fifth respondent with or without the knowledge of the second respondent, but to deem them as contract labourers for the purposes of the Act, it is suffice to note that admittedly the petitioners were employed by the fifth respondent who is the contractor in or in connection with the work of the second respondent, that is, to provide telecom facility to the passengers who avail the service of the second respondent. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for the benefits of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

(3.) TO support his contentions, Mr. R. Viduthalai, learned counsel for the petitioners, referred to Clause 6 and Clause 10 of the Licence, which read as follows :