KCP CEMENT LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order dated 24.01.2018, passed in I.A.No.103 of 2015 in I.D.No.117 of 2011, refusing to decide the preliminary issues raised by the petitioner as to the jurisdiction of the court in entertaining the reference at the instance of the 1st respondent, in the foremost, this writ petition is filed.

(2.) The petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing of cement and has a plant at Macherla, Guntur District. The petitioner Company inter alia engages workmen for the core activities and entrusts the intermediate works to licensed contractors, who engage their own contract labour for executing such works based on the need and necessity of such work and one of such licensed contractor has engaged the 3rd respondent's union contract labourers for different kinds of intermediate works. The petitioner is not responsible for any supervision of such contract labourers. While things stood thus, the 3rd respondent Union represented by one M.Suresh Babu has demanded for regularising 38 contract labourers of such union and absorb their services in the petitioner's factory with all consequential benefits. But the said contract labourers are working under a licensed contractor and the activities of the said labourers do not fall under the category of core activities and they have no right to demand such regularization. Upon the representation given on behalf of the petitioner on 21.09.2010, joint meetings were held. A writ petition was filed in W.P.No.28614 of 2010 before this court seeking regularization and this court vide order, dated 14.06.2011, allowed the writ petition by directing the 1st respondent to take appropriate decision as to whether it is a fit case to refer the dispute to the Labour Court. In pursuance of the above order, the Joint Labour Commissioner took up the matter for conciliation and submitted the failure report to the Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad. Then the said dispute was referred to the 2nd respondent and the same was registered as I.D.No.117 of 2011. The petitioner, after receiving notice form the 2nd respondent filed I.A.No.55 of 2015 in the said ID raising preliminary objections on maintainability and to decide the same as preliminary issue. The petitioner later withdrew the IA with permission of the court and filed I.A.No.103 of 2015 raising the specific ground with regard to the maintainability.

(3.) The counter filed by the 3rd respondent denies the contentions made in the petition contending that there is no provision in Industrial Dispute Act to frame a particular issue as a preliminary issue. The Dispute was of the year 2011. IA seeking for decisions on the preliminary issue is filed in the year 2015 after the petitioner filed their counter in I.A.No.117 of 2011. On the above grounds, the 3rd respondent seeks to dismiss the petition.