Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The affidavit further states that the application which the respondents submitted before the authority is a belated one, since they have submitted after a period of 13 years from the date of their cessation of engagement. According to the Board, the list of contract workers as identified by the Committee in terms of BP-17 alone were entitled for absorption and such of those contract workmen who were working and not absorbed and were engaged directly as casual labour https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis in the services of the Board with effect from 01.05.1999 and 31.10.1999 were not engaged subsequently as they did not satisfy the eligibility criteria found in BP-17, that the Respondents 2 to 5 did not complete 480 days as on 05.01.1998 and as such would not be entitled for absorption. The first respondent, vide order, dated 05.03.2014, held that the application of the respondents 2 to 5 cannot be rejected on the ground that the cutoff date fixed by the Board cannot be put against the respondents 2 to 5. The plea of limitation raised by the petitioner was rejected by stating it is socio welfare legislation, the question of limitation cannot be applied and hence, directed the petitioner to grant permanency from the date of completion of 480 days. Aggrieved over the same, the present writ petition is filed.

6. The respondents 2 to 5 filed notes of arguments wherein it is stated that the individual respondents were originally employed as contract labours in the petitioner Corporation (TANGEDCO). After the abolition of contract labour https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis system, as per Section 10 of the Contract Labour Regulation Abolition Act,1970, it amounts to direct employment as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SAIL case. The employment of contract labourers in Turbine Maintenance Division I of Tuticorin Thermal Power Station is prohibited under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Abolition and Regulation Act, 1970. The 1st petitioner employed the individual respondents as direct employees from the date of appointment as Contract Labour for a period from April 1998 to October 1999, they are entitled for conferment of permanent status as per the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishment of Conferment of Permanent Status Act, 1981. Though originally employed by the contractor under the control and supervision of the 1st petitioner, further, the nature of the employment is perennial in nature and was supervised and controlled directly by the 1st petitioner. By engaging the individual respondents, they were deprived from getting minimum wages as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. But the 1st petitioner has arbitrarily terminated them without any show cause notice and it amounted to retrenchment under Section https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2(00) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, without following the mandatory provision under Section 25-F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The termination is illegal and the respondents 2 to 5 are entitled for regular salary with full back wages for the non-employment period i.e., from October, 1999 to till date. Since the respondents 2 to 5 were employed from March 1998 to October 1999, the competent authority ought to have exercised the statutory duty of making necessary inspection under the Act. Since the above exercise was not done and the respondents 2 to 5 were not absorbed by the 1st petitioner, the respondents preferred an application before the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories seeking to direct the 1st petitioner to absorb them as Helpers and to give them permanent status from the date of completion of 480 days and to direct the 1 st petitioner to disburse all monetary benefits and other attendance and service benefits to them on 27.02.2013. The Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories by exercising his powers directed the 1st petitioner to confer permanent status to all the respondents 2 to 5 herein from the date of their appointment, vide order, dated 05.03.2014. The contention of the respondents is that they were engaged as contract workers https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis between 01.04.1998 to 28.10.1999, that contract workers who are waiting for absorption and paid daily wages directly by Board for 01.05.1999 to 20.10.1999 were absorbed excepting respondents 2 to 5 and that they would be entitled to absorption in terms of BP-17. The respondents 2 to 5 further submitted that with effect from 28.10.1999, they were abruptly stopped by the Board. According to respondents 2 to 5, they have put in 480 days from April 1998 to October 1999 and hence, they would be entitled for permanency. Aggrieved over the same, the 1st petitioner has preferred this writ petition on various grounds. Hence, the respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

21. The writ petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.”
9. The petitioner Board admittedly has engaged contract workers and several contract workers and Workers Unions had repeatedly demanded to regularize them. Several litigations were fought and finally the litigations ended before Hon’ble Supreme Court. In order to resolve the issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court appointed Justice Khalid Commission and based on the report, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis B.P. proceeding was passed imposing certain criteria for absorbing the existing contract labourers. In the aforesaid case the Hon’ble Court had held that there is no infirmity in the scheme. Therefore, re-adjudicating the said issue cannot be entertained and the respondents cannot be allowed to reagitate the scheme in B.P.No.17, dated 28.04.1999 as invalid. Hence the respondents’ plea against the said B.P.No.17 is unsustainable and the plea raised by the respondents 2 to 5 is rejected. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the said BP-17 dated 28.04.1999 is valid and there is no infirmity in the said B.P. proceedings.

15. After considering the rival submissions of either sides, this Court has given its anxious consideration. In the present case the respondents had approached the authority under Permanency Act on 27.02.2013 after the order of termination was passed as early as 28.10.1999. The Board in order to stop the contract workers had prescribed qualifications for the post of Helper vide proceedings dated 23.05.1986, which was challenged in various forums. Finally, it had ended with the appointment of Justice Khalid Commission. The abolition of contract labour was started from prescribing qualifications to the said post as earlier as 1986 and was prolonging until 28.10.1999. Infact the employee who were employed as contract labour from 1986 onwards were considered for absorption. Hence the BP-17 has prescribed that the contract employee should be https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis in Board service from 06.01.1996 to 05.01.1998 and ought to receive wages directly from the Board from 06.01.1996 to 05.01.1998 are entitled for absorption. Since the respondents had received wages directly from the Board from 01.05.1999 to 28.10.1999, the respondents are not coming with the zone of consideration since they have not completed 480 days and hence, they were disengaged from 28.10.1999. The plea of the respondents that they were engaged by the contractor from April 1998 until 30.04.1999 and then engaged by the Board from 01.05.1999 to 28.10.1999, by taking both the services they have completed 480 days and hence they are eligible for permanency. When the Board had considered workers who were engaged as contract from 1986 onwards and has prescribed a condition that those who have completed 480 days from 06.01.1996 to 05.01.1998, there is no infirmity in the said condition. Admittedly the respondents were engaged after the said cutoff date even with the contractor i.e. on April 1998 and such engagement by the contractor is against the rules of the Board. The mistake committed by the contractor cannot be fasten on the Board and hence the respondents cannot be conferred with the permanency status. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis