CHAITANYA BHOI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners. He submits, his clients have been disengaged by impugned order, inter alia, dtd. 20/12/2021 passed on behalf of Deputy General Manager, Food Corporation of India (FCI). He submits, the disengagement is illegal.

(2.) For the work of providing security, there was no notification under Sec. 10(1) in Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Hence, his clients working as such under the contractor, stood protected on their engagement by interim order dtd. 24/10/2019.

(3.) On their only being part compliance of said order, some of those engaged through contractors to provide security had again moved this Court by WP(C) no.25194 of 2020, disposed of by order dtd. 8/10/2020. Coordinate Bench, in that order, recorded that direction made in the interim order stood violated in respect of workers of Jatani, Phulbani, Kesinga, Dungripali, Titilagarh, Balijhari, Burla, Sambalpur and one of Jagannathpur depots of FCI. The order goes on to record that to avoid the discrimination, Regional Labour Commissioner had issued show cause notice dtd. 18/2/2020. He submits, a further show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner on 5/1/2021, with reference to said order dtd. 8/10/2020. In spite thereof, pursuant to impugned order dtd. 20/12/2021 his clients have been disengaged, for engagement of Ex-Servicemen under purported policy of FCI. He submits, his clients ventilated their grievance under Sec. 33 in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He draws attention to annexure-13, being record of conciliation proceeding held on 28/10/2019. He submits, the conciliation proceeding is also pending.