Kerala High Court
S. John S/O. Samuel And Ors. vs State Of Kerala, Represented By The ... on 26 March, 2003
Author: M.R. Hariharan Nair
Bench: M.R. Hariharan Nair
JUDGMENT M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.
1. The petitioners herein claim to be working under the 2nd and 3rd respondents (Kerala Water Authority) from 1993 onwards or thereafter. They do unskilled works under the Kerala Water Authority. Their request is that they might be regularised in service and that their service should not be terminated.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority submitted that the petitioners are not regularily appointed workmen of the Water Authority and that they were doing work for the Authority only under the contractors engaged by the Authority and that as such the authority has no responsibility to absorb them into service.
3. This is the 4th time that the petitioners approach this court with similar requests. In the judgment in O.P. No. 27416/1999 the petitioners' grievance was directed to be looked into and that resulted in Ext. P6 order wherein the Water Authority stated that it has no responsibility to regularise workmen engaged by contractors and that there was not even scope for a conciliation talk. O.P. No. 6549/2001 followed and in Ext. P7 judgment this court directed the petitioners to approach the Government for redressal of their grievances in the light of the judgment in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. etc. etc. v. National Union Water Front Workers and Ors. etc. etc. (2001 (7) JT 268.) The 3rd Original Petition was O.P. 7259/2002 and in Ext. P8 judgment passed therein also similar direction was granted. In the meantime the Labour Commissioner started conciliation proceedings and Ext. P10 shows that a joint conference was convened on 10.3.2003.
4. The petitioners have not produced any documents to show that they were appointed by the Water Authority. Their claim is only that they have been working continuously for the works connected with the functions of the Authority. Obviously petitioners were working under the contractors only. Then the question is only whether their services have to be regularised. A Bench of this Court in O.P. No. 399/95 dealt with similar claims raised by 'hand receipt workers' of the Water Authority itself. It was held that casual employment of the nature involved here would not confer any right on the workers to claim regularisation in service.
5. During hearing today the learned counsel for the petitioners brought to my attention the directions given by the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. case (Supra). After referring to various judgments dealing with the regularisation of the employees and taking note of the provisions in the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, (CLRA Act) the Apex Court held that on issuance of prohibition Notification under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act prohibiting employment of contract labourers or otherwise, in industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labourer in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labourer for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficial Legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit therein. If only Notification under CLRA exists and contract is found to be not genuine, there will be need for absorption subject to suitability.
6. As far as the present case is concerned, Exts. P9 and P10 show that the Labour Commissioner is seized of the matter and conciliation is going on. In case of failure thereof, necessarily a report will have to go to the Government and an Industrial dispute might result. It is at that stage that the direction contained in Steel Authority India's Case as mentioned above applies. The Original Petition is premature. Petitioners have to wait for the result of the conciliation already initiated by the Labour Commissioner and it will be open to them to bring to the notice of the adjudicator at the relevant stage, the contents of the decision in Steel Authority of India case as well.
The Original Petition is dismissed subject to the above.