P ARUMUGAM Vs. TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by as many as 19 petitioners seeking a mandamus directing the respondent to regularize their services in the post of Human Hair Sorter Mazdoors and provide all consequential benefits. The petitioners are working in the respondent-Devasthanam on daily wages of Rs.20/- from 1992 and are discharging their duties on par with the regular Class-IV employees. The duty of the petitioners is to collect the human hair offered to the god by the devotees from the Kalyana Katta complex and also from various cottages and guesthouses at Tirumala and store the same in bags at the godown. According to the petitioners, they discharge the above duties from 8.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. every day without any holiday. It is their case that there are 18 regular employees to discharge the above duties apart from the petitioners and on account of increased quantity of human hair, the services of human hair sorters are necessary to the respondent-Devasthanam. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were engaged on daily wages in the year 1992 with short breaks and from July 1994 though they were continuously engaged and are discharging the duties on par with hair sorter and mazdoors, their services are not being regularized in the posts they are holding. The petitioners, therefore, seek to regularize their services keeping in view that the Devasthanam requires more hair sorters on account of increased quantity of human hair, the low wages being paid to them and the services they are rendering. They also made several representations to the respondent-Devasthanam to consider their cases for regular employment in vain and hence they filed the present writ petition.

(2.) In support of the case the petitioners that it cannot be said that there is no work in view of the fact that the petitioners are engaged for all these years, counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in SECRETARY, HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. SURESH. In the above case where the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 are involved in connection with employment of Karamcharis who claimed regularization, the Supreme Court held as under. There is, however, a total unanimity of judicial pronouncements to the effect that in the event, the contract labour is employed in an establishment for seasonal workings, question of abolition would not arise but in the event of the same being of perennial in nature, that is to say, in the event of the engagement of labour force through intermediary which is otherwise in the ordinary course of events and involves continuity in the work, the legislature is candid enough to record its abolition since, involvement of contractor may have its social evil of labour exploitation and thus the contractor ought to go out of scene bringing together the principal employer and the contract labourers rending the employment as direct, and resultantly a direct employee.

(3.) The Contract Labour Regulation Act being a beneficial piece of legislation as engrafted in the statute book ought to receive the widest possible interpretation in regard to the words used and unless works are taken to their maximum amplitude, it would be a violent injustice to the framers of the law. As a matter of fact law is well settled by this court and we need not dilate much by reason, therefore to the effect that the law courts exist for the society and in the event of there being a question posed in the matter of interpretation of a beneficial piece of legislation, question of interpreting the same with a narrow pedantic approach would not be justified. On the contrary, the widest possible meaning and amplitude ought to be offered to the expressions used as otherwise the entire legislation would loose its efficacy and contract labour would be left on the mercy of the intermediary. As noticed above Draconian concept of law is no longer available for the purpose of interpreting a social and beneficial piece of legislation specially on the wake of the new millennium. The democratic polity ought to survive with full vigour: socialist status as enshrined in the Constitution ought to be given in full play and it is in this perspective the question arises - is it permissible in the new millennium to decry the cry of the labour force desirous of absorption after working for more than 240 days in an establishment and having their workings supervised and administered by an agency within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution - the answer cannot possibly be in the affirmative - the law courts exist for the society and in the event law courts feel the requirement in accordance with principles of justice, equity and good conscience, the law courts ought rise up to the occasion to meet and redress the expectation of the people. The expression 'regulation' cannot possibly be read as contra public interest but in the interest of public.