ANASUYA M Vs. NUCLEAR FUEL COMPLEX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is rather astonishing to note that senior officers working in the Nuclear Fuel Complex at Hyderabad, a constituent unit of Department of Atomic Energy, which is directly under the administrative control of the Hon'ble Prime Minister, not only violated the law of the land with impunity but also showed defiant attitude towards the orders passed by this Court apart from obtaining orders from this Court to the detriment of the working class by swearing in to false affidavits and misleading this Court without placing the real facts before this Court from time to time as per their convenience. Their actions can be summed up in one word i.e., they have no respect either for the law or for the truth leave apart the compliance of the commands of the Courts as declared by the Apex Court as well as this Court. They are under the impression that King can do no wrong and the laws made by the Parliament are not applicable to them out someone else. Unfortunately, these organisations happen to be the Government undertakings. Authorities constituted for the implementation of welfare legislations like payment of Minimum Wages Act and the Employees' Provident Fund are not bothered to visit these organizations or find out whether they are complying with the provisions of these Acts or not. In the result, every Act intending to safeguard the interests of the workmen from the unethical methods adopted by the employer remains a myth in these organisations and nothing but anarchy is prevailing in these organisations.

(2.) In fact, the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of mine in Pola Satyanarayana and others v. Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, 2000-II-LLJ-1278 (AP). But, as the respondents argued the matter cantankerously, I am forced to spend much time in hearing the arguments and pronouncing judgment to satisfy the ego of the officers.

(3.) The petitioners 37 in number filed this writ petition seeking writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent- management (1) in not absorbing the petitioners as regular employees, in not paying the pay and also in not extending other benefits on par with the regular employees of the respondent- management as illegal, arbitrary and consequently directing the respondents to absorb the petitioners as its regular employees and (2) prescribing proper scales of pay and other service conditions to the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment together with arrears of salary.