WORKMEN UMASHANKER SINGH Vs. PRESSIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE workmen have challenged the award dated 29-5-1998 pas$ed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Reference Case No. 14 of 1994. They have further prayed for a direction on the Management of Indian Explosive Limited, Gomia (respondent No. 2) to regularise their services. By notification of the Government of Bihar dated 28-2-1994, the following dispute was referred for adjudication:

(2.) S. N. Das, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted as foilows: the case of 45 night guards is that they were getting only Rs. 675/per month as wages by the management through Shri Ishwar Nath Singh, an employee of the company, who was also the Secretary of the Indian Explosive Workers Union recognized by the management, to 13 night guards in the workers colony and rest 32 night guards were paid by different officers of the company for different areas of the colony. They were getting other benefits also. They have been working for a long time pursuant to the settlement dated 26-5-1969 (Ext. A ). They were actually the employees of the company and their engagement through the officers was merely a camouflage.

(3.) MR. A. Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the management submitted as follows. The case of the management was that only fixed financial assistance was given to its employees residing in the colony on their request for engagement of night guards but they were not appointed by it. The wages were not paid by the management and it had no control over their services. The management was not providing any facility to them and there is no privity of contract between it and the night guards. They were not the workmen of the management. The management has no statutory duty to provide or engage the night guards for its employees residing in the colony. The award was passed after considering the materials on record and there is no perversity or Illegality in it and, therefore, it cannot be interfered with. Further, the claim of regularisation of the night guards cannot be accepted now in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Secy. State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, 2006 (109) FLR 826 (SC): 2006 (42) AIC 935 (SC ).