BIJAY KUMAR JENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) National Aluminium Company (for short. 'NALCO') a Government of India undertaking at Angul, has two units, namely, Smelter Plant and Captive Power Plant for generation of electric energy for its own consumption. The petitioner in both the writ petitions are the security personnel engaged in these two units by the contractor, namely, Investigation and Security Services (India) Private Ltd., opposite party No. 7. They have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the management of NALCO, the principal employer, to declare them as the employees of NALCO consistent with the nature of duties they have been discharging in different capacities. Both the writ petitions were, therefore, heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) Shortly, stated, the petitioners' case is that Investigation and Security Services (India) Private Ltd., opposite party No.7, is a licensee under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short, 'the Act') and engages large number of security personnel in various industries. These petitioners belonging to the said security services have been deployed in the two units of NALCO as security personnel since many years. The duties performed by them being permanent and perennial /in nature, they approached the authorities of NALCO several times to declare them as its regular employees. Due to their persistent demand the Government of Orissa in Labour and Employment Department vide Notification dated April 9,1991 prohibited employment of contract labour in security services in NALCO. Despite such prohibition, the authorities of NALCO allowed the contractor- opposite party No. 7 to engage the petitioners as contract labourers in security service without paying them the remuneration as is being paid to their counterpart in the regular establishment. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner submitted representation to declare them as regular employees belonging to security service of NALCO but nothing was done to ameliorate their grievances. Hence they have filed the present writ petitions praying for the present writ petitions praying for the relief as indicated earlier.

(3.) The management of NALCO and its officials, opposite parties 3 to 6, on being noticed, filed their return. Admitting that part of the petitioners' case that the petitioners have been engaged as security personnel through the contractor, opposite party No. 7 in the two units of NALCO, it is urged that there being no master and servant relationship in between them and the NALCO, they cannot be declared as regular employees of the latter. They have further urged that since security service requires well trained and disciplined security personnel, the Central Industrial Security Force (for short, 'CISF') has been constituted under the Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 and the management of NALCO has taken steps to induct the personnel from the said security force in gradual process by replacing the present security arrangement, their further seek to that investigation and Security Services (India) because as rendering security services to various public sectors as well as private sectors. The said organisation is having its headquarters at Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners being the employees of the said organisation, the management of NALCO has no control over them and does not pay their remuneration/ salary. In the above factual backdrop petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by them.