Karnataka High Court
The Aeronautical Development Agency vs Nanjamma W/O Late Oblesh on 23 May, 2012
Bench: Chief Justice, B.V.Nagarathna
1
r
13 13
C CII CII
I0 .4
.4 I-.
I [ (.
81
11 'r -4' •1 I)
1 1 1 2) 2
9- - 2
C
ID (1
r C c -45
'I)
7'- 'zcIc c? "4 9+
2 9-9- clot--cIt
C I
p:9- cc ;1 4
p:- C-ID
-
I II .9-
'4. -
--t
7 <-4
-9 1 74
1 -- __4
RH 1- 9----
c:-' D
-- 9--'
r'
' -4
9-
4 cc t 9-4
L ID -
'9 _1 % - '-4 '-C 41' I' j
-
-- /9 o '4 '4-'
__zc 27 --
-4 -44 -4 -- -- -4-
-49 99- -
99-1 -- LA
Q
-S
"S
-6--- 9-'--
'1. -)
C
-A
-4--
1-
U
I
0) -
P 4.
-S
I. $
I
0.
V
S.
It
z
I
I
'VP, •1
4,
C
)
0 1
t '0
(q' I.
t
U.
0) 3
17
a
I
a
4
I
.3 0
a
) ) 0
4.
0
4
.3
I
1
S
Ut, .
CD
I
7
Aged about 39 years, Wf as Messenger, ADA, P.B.No.1718, Vimanapura P.O. Bangalore-17, R/at 14th cross, 2nd left, Chandrappa Building, Ejipura, Bangalore-560 047.
12. Shri M.Krishnappa Sf0 Shri Muniyappa, Aged about 39 years, W/as Helper, ADA, P.B.No.1718, Vimanapura P.O. Bangalcire-17, R/at Kodandarama Temple Road, Sidda Reddy Compound, Krishna Reddy Building, Doddanekkundi, Bangalore-560 037.
13. Shri L.Venkatesh Sf o Shri Lakshmaiah Aged about 36 years, W/as Helper, ADA, P.BNo.1718, Vimanapura P.O. Bangalore-17, Rf at No.292, 8th cross, Sanjaynagar, Marathahalli, Bangalore-560 037 APPELLANTS (By Sri M.Narayan Bhat for Mfs. Subbarao & Co.) MW
1. The Union of India Represented by its Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, Shrama Mantralaya, NEW DELHI.
2. The Union of India Represented by its Secretary to Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.
3i 3 •D 3 S I. I 3 a 1 4 p 4 4 'I '3 I 4 S 3 10 filing of writ petitions assailing this device which had the regrettable result of metaniorphosing their initially temporary or casual employment into an amorphous and legally tenuous one dependent entirely on the whim and while of the contractor or the employer.
There was no backdoor engagement, no nepotism and no infraction of Rules because none were in existence. Rue the day when the Courts turn a blind eye to the use of stratagems by employers to deprive a simple impoverished and the lowest rungs of society of their right to live. What respect will our Constitution then demand.
And the situation is all the worse since the employer is a creature of the Government who must afready have expended in this protracted litigation what the Petitioners would collectively have earned throughout their years of employment.
2. Our attention has been drawn to (i) Air India vs. United Labour Union (1997) 9 5CC 377 and (ii) Steel Authority of India vs. National Union Waterfront Workers (2001) 7 8CC 1 (SAIL) as the exposition of what the Apex Court earlier considered was the law, and what it thereafter and currently holds it to be. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants has eloquently argued that the present :c 'p .7
1) '4 'I 3 'p 3• w a .1 ) I 3 a, a '-p C0 ) V ) 'a t 3 1 ) 3 a siall 1 t dcc rwd to bt in direct s laitionship uitli principal ernplovrr who is 1 ed to .jbsui h tht-s. nikrrs incin \rtic Ic 226 ubl c I 'I r •v 1, tsr t l 6 s pouers LO direct a orincip il ernpbyer C absorb surli vc.rjwrs. It as rh's ci u 1 iatic that urn' be cmi a in it, to stitL wh SAILhr it sla w ntc in. IlL ager fl of contract labour does not culminate in the emergence of a master s nt at th in1 lay n 'o in ac. kbo r. at c the a di 1 ec non for t ie absurption or .ne qtwi'e contract labour was not isaged r The C. 1. 0 °r a C ic) 0 present purposes. ar e'ctavte'I br facility of perusd! ,tjWcr rrul w 1 dgmn' tof sCurt r ir I or 't 't c dc t At 1w )n )S&.iaC(i b1 c'.V ti.(:'S1C-I cdiU'i' €tØi 1 dsi jj:rt i it 3 1 t .i v.1. . -- e. C •'' ti !a itfil h. a • ., .1 " 'h : i' . -- '.1: 1,' • 4- 1 4 3 C 1 0 I 4 C0 3 0) 4 U fr b t 3 ')r ce e ci t bjt ci tt the cc idnrnns as ...na be specified In itli Ha Pu fOSt nth°ight dpi: 6hereurickr.
(') If the contract is fou'id w be geruine ana 'r )h 1 Woz
n )uf'c atio'i urc'er Section 1.0(1, of ('ERA
tht rt in
respre' c'h. estelis in it ow tic] ia b"cr ss ci
, h prc pnatc. 3 )vernment. rohihitin& crnp1cnrner'
of contrc ct labour in ar procc.ss, opcraio n or Gthcr tork of an establisfin-ent irid where in suc .n proccs' operation or )thei work of the estaolishment the principal erpkye' rterds t, ttrçlos rcgi a krn, I c stall gne prcference to the erstwhile con tract labo it, I )the isr found e t sui tao aad. if nccessar L rc oflg Ju' c'•)•iditlon aS t ii'a" in gs pprc p1 try talc i° t ito c.i s dora non t'i' tgc n the workeis at the tin S 1 t_ii flt& %iiTlWflLLt ) tt. )lllct) and us, i It l? I 'c,ricli •y g w..
dat .thv1l'a.i .1- 1 a . ti n ,' tls.
.
4 tri., I . I 'fl Cc a I
I V
& I
t • t I
,• I • •
' p •
•
(I • S
t i 12 tverance in the chai 0 IC f) )ment. Predictably
h practice as peremptorily n e 03 the Contract Labour
'Regulation and 'ibolition) Act, 1970. Counsel for the emplo3 ers iniariablui place emphasis on the 4' sub paragraph of paragraph 125 of SAIL reproduced above and unfairly gloss over the next two paragraphs. It is now an integral part of our jurisprudence that the Government is expected to exemplify the model employer.
Legislation is directed not necessarily with governmental agencies in mind since they ought to automatically implement the prevailing egal ethos. It can be expect that welfare and labour t onist laws may be r a a eluctance by private po e who have to t liance therewith e s indeed adopt u r a as o ems nRa 6)1 C ourt hao 2 in service of adhocism tc des 14 and 16 Bench of three learne g riataka State Private 1k gc Stop Gap Is' 'turers Asscx ta Vs Sta'c a Krnataka c othtti (i"°3j II !L S'3 SC v.itr'nr cchtrenrs to n t°biOUS S . '7 decisions ruled that the State Government's policy of appointing ad hoc Teachers for several years, with one day break, paying salaries which were ten rupees less than the minimum payable to regular Teachers was vocative of Article 14. It issued directions for continuing the services of such Teachers, for their regularisation and for payment of salaries on par with the regular Teachers, by implementing the principle of equal pay for equal work. In Bhagwati Prasad -Vs- Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation (1990) I UJ 320 SC, it was observed that once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they are allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective post on the ground that they lack the prescribed educational qualification.
A coordinate Bench of three Learned Judges had shared the same opinion in State of Haryana -Vs- Piara Singh (1993)11 4 LL 937 SC J as under:
"49. If for any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell, the authorities must consider his case for regularisation provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is k CD I U C) (42 (42 b:1 t El ' - CD -- -- C) Q C) , Er 2 Er 8 d El. 2 El' ci C H Er o h C).
H H C)
CD CD cm
-- p, (!': 7" rt ,,,j •" C. --
1 -- N --
1 3- 7"
C © t or --
:
3., .3- (42 H
4 El H
CD (7 H H rt C).
3-
CD
cm
-
©--2 C) -
Er
cc H Er DO Cr -t C)
El' E: EEl 3-,
C Zr El
Zr ' H DC
.
Zr H Er
(7(7<N
Er C)
CrC) -- -- --
CD El C)C' -- cm cm * H ,_
.
3-
Zr
77
:1 -- or 02 -- -- -- C -- C
--.
-- C) U
C)
C);
0 C) C)
C) C) 0202 oZrC)-$C)c(Q
C rt C
H o C'
H
D H ciC) 0< 2 cm
3- 3-
2 2
C) , H J) (7
El 0
H(7CT°--C o
El -) C)
H' 3
:cm C) :
.
Er - DO --, CD cm
H El or Er -- -
C) H< °Er CO
-- 3- C) CD
' C)' E -- -°
Cf(4
7
H' EEgEl
(1) --
"7 -- --'
13 --
3-" :
CrS
H --.
CD CD
ErC) C) H H C C)C) or C
C) C)ElQCCC)C);H
Er
((4 (12 © 0 H Cr --'
. --
3-,
cm eN .'' ._, --7 .-- cm 0 2' C"
3-' ' 2' -- *
U 3- CD CD C C)
C) DC 7)2 CD DC C)
C)
ci C)
C
or
'9
bypassing the regular mode of recruitment, or more blatantly, by bending or ignoring the rules of recruitment either because of bribery or nepotism. The employer as well as the employees in such engagements are in pad deticto, thereby disentitling them to any legal sympathy or recourse. The employees have entered service by being privy to an irregularity if not an illegality , and logically equities will not come to their rescue or succour;
they cannot rely on the doctrine of legitimate expectations. In Umadevi the prefactory paragraphs set the scenario by emphasing that "a regular process of recruitment or appointment has to be resor ted to when regular vacancies in posts, at a particular point of time are to be filled up and the filling up of those vacancies cannot be done in a haphazard manner or based on patronage or other considerations. Regular appointment must be the rule." The Constitution Bench had to choose between jnç opinions that appeared to be then prevailing in the Apex Court:
the first being Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar (1997) 2 8CC (1) State of Haryana v. Piara Singh (1992) 4 8CC 118 and Dharward District PWD Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka (1990) 2 SCC 396 on the one hand, and State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumctr \ama (1Q96, 7 SC(' 3o2 State )f PunJ%l t S ri &r Kuria "°')l 5CC 48 and B N Nagarajans.. Sta te cfK&rnataa
19) 4 S .'C 5 1 n N. her. .\f .r consideiinpr he gat 4 nu of I 'sior s ) 1- s p i ii L le.a age the Conswut on Per iv!' md c the fol' wirg eluc. dat - pro i an s 'me it.
"43. Thus it is dear that £ dl c.rence to the rule of equalin in pub'ic empinmer t is i basic feature of our Constitution and sirce the nile cf 1a' is the coe o' our Con suti awn, a court would certain ly be disabled from paoslng an oider uphc id r , a tiolatw n of 11 ti e le 14 o in 1 r d eri'ng the oierlookiiig of thc need to u moft uitt 1u .içuiremcnla of Ar'r:'. 1+ tad i ith A tick , o lit (. isa.ntiai fhcre.osc* ns s ern yflj t sri ti 1 rn Jnmni ths (t'urL 1iIe cS1fl I V I ii x .essir.l' te foIl 'hat un S I ti a t t . lit k,intriw.ard uti f 11 ) i it in i.LiI c etsOVs. tnt c,nL • ci' I lt -- th_ n.r'e-- I t • • 1 .p -i i lJ) --'irer.
•'
r• t
- ..
•. I % - S
) 4Jj • 1)t
21
or appointment on daily wages or casual basis the s'imei-cfldcoretoi endihet tisdlcntiLel. S mUir a etuporary emp oce could not claim to be made permanent on the expir of his term of appointment. It has also to be clarified that mere ly because 'a temporary emplo)e r a c s iI i age worker is con inuea for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made pennanent, merely on the strength of such continuance if the c riginal
ii))) intm fl Nfl o nade b fol ow ng a due process of selection as envisaged bi the relevant rules.
It is not open to the court to prevent regular recruitment at the instance of temporary employees ihose p r'o I of n p o men h om o an nd o of ad ho mployee. who by toe yen nature of Iheir appointmenL, do not acquire ini nght. The High Courts acting under Article 226 of the Constitu°ion should '1)1 orchna ily 1 a it t ie r ioti po i' n e c 0 laitn rprminenr c' ,t n lcfl .e ci less It. rrr uvmcit i'self v-as math V )1 'tgularly i.nd in terr i of U' c c 'i ttufc i ii ch n Merci hec aust au c mplcn ec had c. 1 to inur ed under tnex of cii orclcr of tlic coin ''-dcl' we hwe dc.s ribed as 1 ignus e np ., ncnt' ir di. carlie. per of the judgr itn . I '.c uld not Ix tntitled to an nçht to b"
absorbdruidep'ircnrti I saic Infc.i such c'ises, the High Court may not bc justified in issuing intenm dire 'tons sire. ut r Il I titri t 1 the enploee ipprcaching it is found entitled to relief, it tin be possible t n 't to n'ou'd the roliti in suth a ri nn 'r ha. ilti flak . to prcjudict. wll be (aused kim whreas an i nenm dirtctinn U cont'nue his empoi ri id i&d tot £ cg hr cia' h sele nor or misoct. .' tht state tlit- burdr-,, t Pa) ing ur cm ito' ec s '1, s '-ali3 i 't - aqwrcd. 'fl ii is r b 'u I iii. cn. u r. • a 1 t l'ç, .Y •"t j.•rt1.e 4 ..
rdu.
t) tiC 'n'.rc ar'sg''r.t-st at* a
ic •
1, 'rr t; : kni twi.sih-_ 'te
ustr ' it' - f :tj .1" b;i'-.; . .
:1-ti I c 1 S
xxx xxxm
M5. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularised or made permanent, the courts are ssased 1w the fact that the person concerned has iorked fo some tine nd in some cases for considerable length f time. it is not as i the person ho accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature. is not aware of the nature of his employment.
He accepts the employment with open eyes. Tt may be true that he is not in a pc shion to bargain not at arm
-
lencti -sin e he mgji ha e been searcning or some
-
employmen so & to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on Lhat ground alone, a ould not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of apointn'ent and to tale the iew that a person who hstenporaii 01 eatil gi emlya ho I oe dctd o tnieiprni..ntl.Bdoingso,it wit be seating anatner mo4e of public appointm ent which is not permissible if the cc u't 'icre to vttd a t.ont1e tual emplrvnv"it t tl'is nature on the piourd * I at Ui t p ic 01 av g w' I rg un power. that ton w.'uld not enable the court to grant am 1 ) a ii t a c 1. u c.r rcmpoi ar'. crnp1oInei_t is not possible. gi; en tnt.
g ci o Jr ii at i I rr scduldn mean that some people u ho at least get emplo inent mp rat lv. ont -act a11 or c auafl . uld no bc. °ttir g t. 'en ha err loy icr 'I en ccii rng of 'uc ernplo5 merit brings at least some succour to them. \ftr nn rcrblt ftnn 1 ii a c it a search of emplo ment and one is not compelled to a I t ) r T Itri n i'iclined to go iii n sac Ii an '-mpio' ment It is 4 n tha cit I at x i ) ic d t lsi6h th in di ccpu d fuiP k'or :1' i a.turc of' 1c - ns cQc ice f..n i' fr. _t - Li l.c. 'o cI c r c. c Ii p i 'ii tue p 'i.) fll r;t .' iflq-- rjl-.re '.' Las rnI.L!..ert t is fl(a' 1• 1 ' t.
I h I iti I --
.I• I :
tcmpnranb ir ploycci or the inheres' in tht post annot
lx nrsded to 'c isa I a naiiit;cc c% toe (rbc
thc gains, up of the pnx'.-duie established, for inakinç :c pu a t ippointinents to nailabic posts ir the s ar icc -
' tFt State 'Fe nguneit that since one has bten
orking for sm timc in the post. ii 'dli not he lust tn
discontinue him e thrng'i 1' v
cii s vu-e of ho
nature of tht cmi ltnmert hci. he first took it up. is
Ti a (ski one t.iat ould enable the jettisono 1 the
proceduc sbishd b,, kv fo piblc p0 itt
id %cculd have Us fail hen tested on the touchstone of onstitat'onahty 'in' cc ualit of opprrtux.h crsh nned rftick Ic F( si ir' ,½b C t'X flX "4' 'Ir'ic"'r .1c. cx., (it • Tel
1. E ij4 r.ic..t :s .it 41 'r : t 0 •.c t I 0 r,j i-' r 'ic- c 1)' ' • ?',. d (.11 1 r.,pe- ati'' 'ur 3 a...t3i ciii fro xi 4 •. o,' .;'.c(, .J '.,1.'Za' • r• ' .1 Slit' 'a) person i It niv ia the theun an of legninta e expec c don fur being c j t i rm n ed in the pnst when an appointnen w the post could be made on] hi.
10110w ing i proper pi oc edure for selee t on and 'r, ase enncernLd. in onsultation with the Publn be± x ice Cornmissb n Thcrc fore, tlic theor\ of legitimate expectation cannot be sue cessfulh adx anced In cmporan COl ti sen al or easual en p1 n ms t (a ot also ue held that the State has f eld on pr wise wh1e engaging hese pe sons either u e ndi r the i w wrc they are or to r ske the m per naneur Tf e St s e earn t r sti tionIl Snake s rh a pr )rni se P P dvii is U jr the tI r canm t be iLo1ed to seck a nositi e +ef of be 14 S 'C perman( r i4 IL the t pu s '('5 NV \<-
r: itn e sos ICC
1 ru is a. n. ( 1
i n-s
icr a h t '0 or' cI,aN c' s 4'
t
ng
q e,
' ' iatd 1
a i aL'it I 11,
''U n tli g r
r
1 ,l 'tI
ç
1
lit i' It I
'' C I,
'
-- -- C) C. r 4-
C) 7)
--- -- :. -- --
C) 4), C) C) C) r
--
--
I 42
C)
Ct
CC :9)- C) " '-9-
t
--
--
--
-- -- C 9- C)
C. C) V t r1 U 9
a
9- r '- -- C.
--
'
c g --
I
-
-
E 02 42 9- C) -'- I
-9- -- -
-4 3-
(5)
) 'ZN 4- 42 1
--.9
--
7 -- -- r-
9-
9--- 9---
9--.
--
9 '- C) --
-- - 9-9 -.. -- C
4-
-- 'S Ct
--
o- C) t
-
-
9'.'
9-
C) r
C)
$
-
a
£ a: --
--
-4
t'-'C7 -- -- 94 -I" 9-
-9-
¶EC)CC--
C)
--
3
9-
-
- C) L Ci '
ii
Ct
9) Ci cs c
'
C
0 --
C) -- 4. --
C) --
-
r -
--.' C) C) f --9-
4) 4) --' .--
-9-
--
' , C) C)
C)
-- -- -
E-'S
-.
'S
t L-.C) y
C) --
C) C) -L
E-
-
-9'
CD, C)
:- - 9)1
C) -- -- C) 9.
4-9--
'4
-- -
).' 4'
9- C) -- -
Ct Ct
-"
C) 99-9
4'4
--
' 'S -
2
9",
C
-
-
'--'4
-
t
-
Ct9)
- -
C) -Th r
-.
i- Ct C
-9)' 4 42 (3 Ci 1 Ct C
4
t _3 C) - CiC)t3
9" (5
Ct9)
4- C)
Ct
9' CC - C)
' 29-
02 -
-' 42 - C) cC) Ct1 U
42 C) 09- - - -'
--- 4) --
*
- C ---
'S
-- C) 9- C)
, $2 -911; - C) ) 49'
-- --
4
, CC) -
C
- _ 4 '4
$
-9
4) C) C) '49-9
--
9-
--9- -- C) C) -- C -- -
-
CC
--
. (-9
- (5, -9--
- -
-
-
949-
) C) •
C)
--9 -- --I
--J
-- -- ° -- --
C)
-c C C) -- Ci
9-
-- -
9-'
C) -
r
"
(-- C)-- S 4- a:
1
- ---- -- -
9-44) 9-
4- C) C) 2 4--.. 94'
'.4 ,
N
- 9 9--
--
-- C)
-
-
Ct C) , -
-
--' '.'
r* -- 4-f C) , :
C) C)
99- C) 4.--' 4) 9-- 4-
9-
-
'
CC 'Z C)
9)1,
--
C)
-- -
C)
(3(3 C
9-1.
-- ----
1
- 9-
33
r
- , ' 9-
)9- C) a: -'
C?
--
42 -
--
C) 4- 9- C)
-
I
4-1)
'
-9- '
C)
-- C)
r
C) -
4-
C)
C) -1
29-
a
Ct
- - -
4 a 11. CC 42 9)1 1 C) C)
Ct Ct r 2, -.-
C
C) SD ai CQ C) - a: 4- 9- C)
directions fot making such pnrson permanent in
t t n s-t d'51d that pwt of tin direc ion of 'he
High C ou't lirrcting th Gc ver tne i t ' cot cc t t I tii' eases for regulans ttic'n Ve also notice thai. the H'gh Cci. it has n. rth: ted to thc aspc t as to whether it "as rcgulansatir t vas &nc pcrnncr.ç hi 'as being direr-ted bs U-' High Co ifl In such a situation.
th° ci cc.ticn in that rigard cull stand de'cwd and the appeals filed by the State ou1d stand al1oitd to that extert If saner oned posts re acint (the aic said to 1 c vac ant) the Statc ilI take immedia te steps for '111mg those posts by a regular t0CLSS of 4 selecticr But .'hea .
repul r recn itm 'nt is undertaken, the respondents in (-As Nw. 3o96l2 and those m the Co mn' cial r:xts Department similari s uated. w'I i b' a1loied to cx ip htP i '.r th' we i 'strc tin i impris' d fr the ' tcraitmcr ai cl givinG son e cteightage for ti ar 1 i Ph 1, )tfl "ign'ed i.n .ork n tN .Yp4rtrnc-r.t 10)! -' .ifr ji c ) imc hqt ac,ulc be-
-
.x*ei 4 tl'c of tht. 'xe;cis-' of I" it, tI-is Cat i..id r i i --
tJ e Cna st't'tl ion to ft ' (s ilcin 6 \b 1 1 'r .'t 1 e ' ! ; t .3 1ti 0 1 - ('71% . I: , £ wb' U 3 t )._ UI I - c ' £ $ t ". I --. 1. (ifi LI I fl C t'if' c 1 ''
-rntUmadevi J I ) ( C. rjq 'I ) * t ) 7 I 7 3 4 I 13 'V C. 0 'V 3 S 'p 'V C, TV 4 3 C. V. 0 Ps I, 'a ) C TI I V r t S •1 'I (p 4 Lw IC I thea tmplomu t i ed nt petilions gaunt tie ipelli i s Th' appellants plead r tat the r s mci si t re is nriinawd on 01.0?' 1 8Q. It is evidcnt that wlvls th 1 'er s vie. of ..hc ptiitioatet hd 1 )n u ed tlr sn sorrn..tin c in I'e cl-anp 3 form ci con ra t ' rk s the) had i 'vu act 'pted this tte npted 'hange thrust on then b thc appellar Is c.m 103 C ra 11w learnt' I S.ngk .udgc as His Lordship, H L.Dattu, hi irders dated 29 05 199b 1 Ct d th Centrat w- intent to take suitabl a action unt kr Sc' tion 10 of the (IRA 'Ct, 1Uflt suc h act on v as taken, J the c rnpln5 ment of the cspndents oud cont'ni e t Disst tisfie I wi F F is c cc s ) i tile cetitciers flaci W4 rcs7 11 7656/199o . 7155 ;2/19°6 nd 71 ?3-1/ I9L6 and other connts tti ma ten, In: "i Is f Le c ancd single It dgt "as uphel' i' 'icr in kd"i th' t cli fs qe 1 tic 1% Si l)rri it] ac 1t cft:ct e rde; 4 therenr b tin . jtt' of lna' ntt , 1 , 'T ur t' '(tact Dt"S r.t ip uisea 51 3' tt I nj , fljg if a 1 t (3 pl t' ' I CC C I tt), 3 1. r]) r, 'I 'S ('rit.' '' Cav •fl • en il_cc JI..n i jai) L e 1 . ri )f, t a st •ai :if.. I •'.'Cir f, ) ,?'. I iC -- fIt' ti I 0 32 employment if they report for duty". Eventually, on 05.11.1998, the following Notification was passed.
NOTIFICATION No.5.0. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section (1) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (37 of 1970), the Central Government after consultation with the Central Advisory Contract Labour Board, hereby prohibits the employment of contract labour in the jobs specified in the Schedule annexed hereto in the Aeronautical development Agency, the National Aeronautical Laboratory Campus, Belur, Bangalore.
SCHEDULE: 1. Helpers;
2. Messengers;
3. Attenders; and
4. Despatch Clerks.
Sd/ icc (SDDas) Director General (Labour Welfare) Joint Secretary to the Government of India (File No.U-230 13/30/07-LW)"
Obviously, a copy of this notification was not conveyed to the petitioners leading them to file contempt petitions, which were U disposcd of b3 tic. Dnisicn &nch 1w orc..cs iatcc O1.12.l_96.
'I e No ilk iii w Jot td or. io. i Q8 iwinu ben placed en record thme to 1 t i Pt ptit ns vc lisrusserl as 'tttdraar. uth lb 'it c he c i nplaina its or an othet twrkrnen to apu ach the Cnnt ai- sh itt y t 1 t iot t i i r..ctbns vith rcspcs to thcir absorptc n and regulansation hac vwr bce comp'ieO with' 8 Ph - obdur itt if not recalt uranIrefusaI of the appellants to abiut 4 b: tnt- i deis o. dii. Dii ision .Jaca ru,,sta cifliCCi flu wri pctit oncrs to tulc tl'e secot d salv o ot vñt petitions rn 'ih ch thc. imugn C rd rs da ed 1833.20 0, amc 0 iX passed.
I K Ic irner Singi •Jiadgc has tntual'a 'eu d that -i; th'- t tempi )f 4 tFe Z fri a i. .1?a' 1i3 tbld.U ishr. F.' tilt-
t ir caL1k!fl Si iri bs i-hi it pettloncis b tia.t dtiwgt';t 1 ears '935 1980 j'g ptt ti 'flL13 4 ' 4jfl1 C I au (Fit ogcs r . tt. . . nrfln I )cr ' ill a.1r er1ntln 1't s fl9') ' t al 11 4-,) .
-i t n,t'i t '
•f i: 1€ t £tc. 1 i it 4
P
S4.r tEat i.,-fi
' ".t'ic.d ía tic u.t' I) it'S --'ft ..
- t' ''IL - A t 1
A
I t
'is
t t a t
)c
%
.-
1.I%
fl' I lan.,,:.
f a I. a
' ai -- it • a .
'4
S if C Tn II ii (1 0
eaegoiies ' empln rnent discussed aboe ne applied. .1 is
manifestly clear that the impugned otter ctnes ii ot direct the
ci on of posts tilt re nsati f the t;oter Tin.
'-C nc a o cc st
anc As i'e have a n4d nnt:d above it s not the cast c the
appellants that the recruttments of the petitioners at its inception t w ontrar ) -tn' les and oulatio On t ontrai t lb 1 p ars u r es blishmer md terefore, engagec the scn'cs C the petitioners in mcnial or ministerial duties There ias nü rnfraction of ii 'uk's no r'ac k loot ent no iie tism € d no brib rv 01 1 (. p S rn diatc l Wi. ('c i hen i scn ieie gin tO ix altered tnt', CtfliaC, ldbi)t r c1j'l th ir ccrstcb cotir'i'd tol .t J t '-A 1 1 ve at ti' •ie tent' ,c) c ret e I I yr ti ul t J at 'It F' c 'pell an:
. ••. ._,t • I Pr t \ke z: :t • a • 'I S •1 o '. Iopn'er - c.nn rc d sir cc 'itF cs s f ?1O.000, pnahIe t ' a p icr s rp 'i ic u rcrc.prcs i c b o i It j t e Is f c t c c. j t . r v c s s ir .
(1. 1 $ °C M r:Srb