NUCLEAR FUEL COMPLEX HYDERABAD Vs. K PENTA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri R.S. Murthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) This writ appeal is directed against the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in WP No.5201 of 1993 dated 4/12/1996 directing the appellant-Nuclear Fuel Complex to absorb the respondents herein in regular service as and when vacancies arise in future keeping in view the principle governing Section 25-F and the allied subsequent provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the above direction, the appellant-Nuclear Fuel Complex filed the present writ appeal.

(3.) We have perused the pleadings and also the judgment under appeal. In our considered opinion, with regard to the absorption/appointment of contract labour in regular posts, they have to be filled in accordance with the recruitment rules having regard to the age, qualifications and experience, subject to availability of vacancies. The judgment of the learned single Judge dated 4-12-1997 is at variance with the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.189 of 1990 dated 24-1-1994. Respondents 1 to 30 herein were not engaged by the appellant-Nuclear Fuel Complex but by a contractor for a particular period and for a particular job and as such they are not 'workmen' for the purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They would not be entitled to reinstatement/ absorption in service as there is no question of termination or discharge as the engagement was for a particular period and for a particular job and such employment came to an end automatically as soon as the time was over and the job and over. This was the view expressed by the Madras High Court in the case of Crompton Engineering Company v. Additional Labour Court, 1975 (1) LLJ 207. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in matters like this has laid down the law in Dinanath v. National Fertilisers Limited and Ors., 1991 (4) SC 413. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment reported in Sail v. National Union Water Front Workers, 2001 (5) Scale 626, has also observed as follows: