KRISHAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The in built human desire to seek permanency is once again reflected in these petitions.

(2.) The petitioners came to be initially engaged through a contractor. They were to look after the various establishments of the respondent/Food Corporation of India (here-in-after referred to as the Corporation) in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The majority of the petitioners came to appointed on 1.1.1995, though it is also not in dispute that some of them were appointed even earlier to that date also. It is also not in dispute that initially they came to be appointed through a contractor. This contract between the Contractor and respondents Food Corporation was for three months only. It could be renewed but was not renewed by the Corporation. This was because the contractor was not having a valid licence in terms of Section 12 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (here-in-after referred to the Act of 1970). It is the case of the petitioners that the Labour Department of the State of J&K had called upon the said Contractor to indicate as to whether he was competent to engage contract labour under the Act of 1970. It is also pleaded that when these proceedings were taken by the Labour department, the contractor disappeared from the scene and the petitioners continued to work with the respondent-Corporaton. The further case of the petitioners is that after the notice was issued to the contractor by the Labour department and the alleged contractor disappeared they have been getting these wages directly from the Food Corporation of India, there being no intermediary between hem. This aspect of the matter is being denied by the respondents-Corporation of India. It is submitted that these direct payments were made only when interim orders were passed by this Court. The further case of the petitioners is that even though initially they came to engaged through a contractor but the need being permanent they are part and parcel of watch and ward staff.

(3.) They submit that for watch and ward staff there is a specific prohibitory provision in the Act of 1970. This prohibition is to the effect that as the need of watch and ward staff is permanent, the employees are not to be employed through a contractor. Reference is being made to the contract said to have been entered into between the Food Corporation of India and one H. Rehman Proprietor M/s Security Services of India. Paragraph "3" of the Contract is being expressly relied upon. For facility of reference, this is being reproduced below :-