Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Phul Vaid Son Of Shri Bhunda Ram And ... vs The Food Corporation Of India on 11 May, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
C.W.P. No.8905 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.8905 of 2012
Date of Decision. 11.05.2012
Ram Phul Vaid son of Shri Bhunda Ram and others
.......Petitioners
Versus
The Food Corporation of India, 16/20, Bharakhamba Lane, and another
.....Respondents
Present: Mr. Ashok Tyagi, Advocate
for the petitioners.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. The writ petition is at the instance of employees, who had claimed themselves as employees appointed on contract basis with Food Corporation of India as workers. By notification issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment on 07.02.2011, the Government of India has published under Section 19(1) read with Section 10(3) of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act of 1970 prohibiting the employment of labour in the works of loading, unloading, stacking, destacking, restacking standardization, weighment, sweeping and cleaning in the godowns and depots of the Food Corporation of India. The petitioners, who had been doing the work on contract now have an apprehension that after abolition of contract labour, the respondents are trying to engage fresh appointees and this left a prospect of termination of services of the petitioners. The petitioners would seek for prayer that they should be allowed to continue with the Food Corporation by virtue C.W.P. No.8905 of 2012 -2- of notification issued on 07.02.2011.
2. The writ petition is wholly misconceived. A notification under Section 10 prohibiting the particular nature of employment for contract work does not automatically entail a right of absorption. This has been specifically so laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SAIL v National Union of Water Front Workers AIR 2001 SC 3527 . In at least two decisions of the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. G. Srinivas Reddy AIR 2006 SC 1465 and Municipal Corporation Of Greater vs K.V. Shramik Sangh And Ors AIR 2002 SC 1816, it has been held that the High Court does not have the power to direct absorption of contract labour on the ground that work entrusted to them is of perennial nature or that the person could not have been employed on contract. A better relief in all such cases will be only to give a direction to the parties to approach the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court for investigation into the nature of service conditions of contract labourers before granting a relief of absorption. This has been so laid down in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Nitin Kumar Nathalal Joshi and others Vs Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and others [AIR 2002 SC 1444] and AIR 2002 SC
969. The question of absorption is a matter of decision of the Government and not of Courts. Courts could not issue mandamus to direct regularization or to say that the persons, who had been employed on contract could never be terminated from service. This was laid down by the Supreme Court in Dena Nalh v. Nalional Fertilisers Ltd., AIR 1992 SC 457 .
3. The only protection that could be contemplated in a C.W.P. No.8905 of 2012 -3- situation in SAIL case is that a person, who cannot be continued in the contract work by virtue of a provision, will have a right of preferential consideration to the fresh appointees to the post. The petitioners will have such a benefit if a regular recruitment process is undertaken for filling up the posts. If the posts are identified as regular and if the Corporation decides to undertake such exercise, the petitioners shall still be required to apply for the posts for consideration for appointment. They cannot allow themselves to be continued without termination and stall a recruitment process, as is sought to be done now.
4. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 11, 2012 Pankaj*