JOGENDRA SABAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the decision of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in prohibiting employment of contract labours in different Departments of National Aluminium Company Limited (NALCO), Damanjodi and for a direction to the opposite party no.3 to pay wages to the unskilled, semi-skilled, skilled and high-skilled contract labours working in the NALCO, Damanjodi at the rate to their counterparts working in regular establishment.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the short facts of the case are that the petitioner and other contract labours belong to the Scheduled Tribe. They are working in different Departments of NALCO, Damanjodi. They approached the Central Government for abolition of contract labour system and regularization of their services in NALCO, Damanjodi. There was no response. They approached this Court in several writ petitions for abolition of contract labour system and regularization of services. This Court disposed of the writ petitions directing opposite party no.1 to consider the representations and take a decision within three months. The Central Advisory Contract Labour Board (CACLB) in its 80th meeting held on 20th & 21st October, 2011 at New Delhi decided that all cases shall be taken up together as one case. The CACLB considered the report of Dy. CLC(C), Bhubaneswar and decided not to accept the report as the issue was not examined by the Dy. CLC(C) strictly in terms of Sec.10(2) of the Central Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 ("CLRA Act, 1970"). Accordingly, CACLB formed a sub-committee to study the working of contract labour system in the establishment of NALCO, Damanjodi and to make suitable recommendations whether or not the employment of contract labour in the jobs mentioned in the representations of the workers union be prohibited in the said establishment keeping in view the provision of Sec.10 of the CLRA Act, 1970 and to submit its report within three months from the date of its constitution. Since no decision was taken, they filed WP(C) No.16059 of 2014 before this Court seeking a direction to the opposite party no.2 to take a decision in the matter.

(3.) Pursuant to issuance of notice, opposite party nos.1 and 2 entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. Case of the opposite parties is that CACLB constituted a sub-committee to examine whether contract labour system shall be prohibited at Damanjodi. The opposite party no.3 intimated the petitioner regarding place and date of the meeting. The petitioner remained absent deliberately. The members of the sub-committee interacted with the contract labours on 28.6.2012, who are engaged in different sectors of NALCO at Damanjodi and recorded their opinion. The sub-committee prepared a draft report. One of the members of the subcommittee was absent in the meeting. The report was prepared by four members out of five members. The sub-committee submitted report after personal meeting with the contract labours. NALCO has accepted the proposal given by the sub-committee regarding monthly wages of the contract labours. Further, the contract labours shall be paid at par with lowest wages of the regular employees per month. Abolition of contract labour system is the sole discretion of the appropriate Government. Opposite party no.2 has taken a decision on the report placed by sub-committee after thorough enquiry and personal interaction with the contract labours. NALCO declined to abolish the contract labour system.