WORKMEN OF HYDERABAD ASBESTOS CEMENT PRODUCTS LIMITED, JHARKHAND Vs. MANAGEMENT OF M/S. HYDERABAD INDUSTRIES LIMITED, JASIDIH UNIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for petitioner-workman and learned counsel for the respondent-Hyderabad Industries Limited, Jasidih, Deoghar, Jharkhand. Since, both writ applications are against the same impugned award, hence both are jointly heard and disposed of with this common order.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.(L) No. 4196 of 2009 that they have preferred this appeal against the part of the award dated 18th April, 2009 passed in reference case No. 1 of 2006 by learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi whereby various items of demands, 18 in number have been decided. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that they are challenging the decision of the Tribunal by which it has decided the demand No. 17 against the workman holding that the demand as vague, since the demand was fixed demand of some temporary workers and some contract workers and as the contract workers are concerned, it gave a finding that since Government has not prohibited the job of the contractors as yet under the provision of Contract Labour (R &A) Act, 1970 and as such the union cannot demand regularisation or putting them as permanent workers at par with the regular workers. It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the aforesaid finding is perverse because it has come in the evidence of the management witness No. 3 Sanjay Kumar Sinha that some of the contractors are also on the roll of regular workmen and as such the plea of the management that they are workers of the contractors is mere ruse/camouflage to evade the various beneficial legislation and as such considering the evidence of the management, the Tribunal must have come to a conclusive finding that workers of the management- company are not of the contractors and accordingly, they are entitled to their demand being a regular workmen.

(3.) Learned counsel for the workmen has relied in para 125 of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court constitutional bench reported in 2001 (7) SCC 1 : (AIR 2001 SC 3527) in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors. has further submitted that there is a clear settlement between Hyderabad industries and their workmen represented by Hyderabad industries workers Union dated 12-3-2008 wherein it will appear from clause P.11.2.2 that it was settled that if a casual worker works in the industry for 240 days or more in one year continuous service, he will be made temporary. However, if they fail to work for desired number of days in the stipulated time, the employee will loose his claim of upgradation to temporary workmen category and/or permanency in that year. It is also agreed as per clause P.11.1.2 that the existing practice of making temporary workers permanent i.e. after they have put in 480 days of actual work in two consecutive years will continue. However, if they fail to work for desire number of days in the stipulated, the employee will loose his claim of permanency in that year. Learned Tribunal failed to decide the matter while deciding the demand No. 17 and as such according to them the award is perverse and only fit to be reconsidered.