S SATISH BABU Vs. MISHRA DHATU NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, 19 in number, are working in the 1st respondent - M/s. Misra Dathu Nigam Limited, a Government of India Enterprise. It is not in dispute that they were initially engaged by a contractor by name M/s. Agnes Utility for the purpose of the Aeronautical Material Testing Laboratory (AMTL) established and being maintained by the 1st respondent. However, pursuant to a Memorandum of Settlement dated 26.6.2001 entered into between the petitioners and the management of the 1st respondent, the petitioners were taken by the 1st respondent on contract basis for AMTL. It is also not in dispute that the 1st respondent has been paying the pay and allowances to the petitioners on par with its employees of the corresponding category at the induction level.

(2.) The 1st respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO), a Department in the Ministry of Defence entered into a contract with the 1st respondent for operation and maintenance of AMTL for the Kaveri Engine being developed by Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) for carrying out testing services and the tenure of existing contract would expire on 31.01.2013. As per the contract, the DRDO shall meet all the expenditure connected with the running and maintenance of AMTL including salary of the workmen employed at AMTL. The petitioners who were engaged on contract basis specifically for AMTL were not included in the muster rolls of the 1st respondent as their services are co-terminus with the contract awarded to the 1st respondent. Thus it is contended that AMTL is not a part of the 1st respondent's organisation and the petitioners are also not in regular employment of the 1st respondent. It is also stated that the petitioners are not covered by any of the tripartite/bipartite settlements made with the recognised unions of the 1st respondent and that similar claim made by the petitioners that they were entitled to participate in the trade union elections conducted in the year 2005 was rejected by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 1.10.2005 on the ground that AMTL was a separate establishment and not linked to the 1st respondent. The petitioners were also not allowed to participate in the elections held in the year 2008 and W.P. No. 674 of 2008 filed by them was dismissed by order dated 1.9.2008.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, it is stated that the petitioners had never participated in the elections held to the Trade Unions operating in the 1st respondent. It is contended that the writ petition itself was not maintainable as the petitioners were not parties to the proceedings dated 16.6.2010. It is also contended that by virtue of the Settlement dated 26.6.2001 under which the petitioners agreed to continue with the 1st respondent on contractual basis for AMTL, the petitioners themselves had given up their right for regularization of their services and therefore it was rightly held that they were not entitled to participate in the secret ballot.