HARIHAR SINGH MUNDA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I .A. No. 2993 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioners praying for an interim order for protecting the interest of the petitioner for their continuous engagement as security personnel.

(2.) SRI Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel for the petitioner would explain that during the pendency of this writ application, the respondent No. 2 has issued a fresh Notice Inviting Tender, inviting applications from established security agencies for deployment of security personnel. Thereafter the respondents have engaged the services of an agency namely M/s. Polular Sainik Security Agency and have executed a contract of engagement with the aforesaid agency on 14.09.2009 without specifying any conditions therein to ensure the engagement of the petitioners under the aforesaid agency.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel adds that when the respondents had sought to outsource the deployment of the security personnel to private agencies, the security personnel had expressed their apprehensions that by such outsourcing, their services may not be engaged by the private agency. Such apprehensions were expressed by the petitioner in an earlier writ application vide C. W.J.C. No. 2348 of 2000 (R) which was filed by the Bokaro Steel Workers Union representing the contract labourers. Upon considering the apprehensions, while disposing of the writ application, this Court had observed that till the claim of the labourers regarding their absorption/regularization of service is not finally adjudicated by the concerned court/tribunal, the management shall not remove these labourers at the instance of the contractors and even if the new contractors are engaged, the management shall ensure that these labourers who have been working for the last 25 -30 years shall continue to work under the new contractors. The management was accordingly directed to put condition in the Notice Inviting Tenders to this effect.