Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

to rectify certain mistakes in that order by issuing G.O.(Rt.) No.2929/2002/LBR dated 27.9.2002. The issue referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal was:-

"Whether the demand for regularisation of the services of petty contract workers and contract line workers by KSEB is justifiable? If so, what relief they are entitled to."

3. By Ext.P1 award passed on 15.12.2004 the Industrial Tribunal held that 25% of the existing vacancies of electricity workers as well as of the vacancies that may arise during a period of five years from the date of the award shall be reserved for appointment from among petty contractors and contract line workers. The Industrial Tribunal held that the minimum qualifying service for considering the claim for regularisation can be fixed as 1200 working days. The Industrial Tribunal also held that only petty contractors and the workmen who worked along with them are entitled to the benefit of the award and contract workers who were employed through other contractors for construction and other major works are not entitled to the benefit of the award. The operative portion of Ext.P1 award reads as follows:-

"47. Before concluding this award, it is  and connected cases.

hereby clarified that the petty contractors and the workmen worked along with them alone are entitled to be included in the seniority list. In other words, the contract workers who were employed through other contractors for construction and other major works are not entitled to the benefit of this award.

may pave the way for the entry of ineligible persons through the back door, this Court observed that the said apprehension is not well founded as the field of choice is confined to the workmen named in Exts.W23 and W24 series lists appended to the award and that no worker, whose name does not find a place in the said lists, shall be considered for selection. The Kerala State Electricity Board carried the matter in appeal by filing W.A.No.627 of 2008. By judgment delivered on 10.7.2008 (Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.22982 of 2011) the said writ appeal was dismissed. One of the Contract Workers Unions filed W.A.No.615 of 2008 canvassing the correctness of the observations made by the learned single Judge in para 12 of the judgment regarding the workers who are eligible to be considered for selection. By Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 22.10.2008 another Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said writ appeal. Though the Kerala State Electricity Board and the appellant in W.A.No.615 of 2008 carried the matter to the Apex Court by filing SLP (C) Nos.23872 of 2008 and 31118 of 2008, the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by Ext.P3 order passed on 12.3.2010. Ext.P1 award thus attained finality.

7. A learned single Judge of this Court had while upholding Ext.P1 award directed that the field of choice will be limited to those petty contractors/contract line workers whose names find a place in W23 and W24 series of lists appended to the award. Therefore, every petty contractor/contract line worker whose name figures in W23 and W24 series lists is entitled to object to the draft seniority list prepared by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and to have his objections considered at a hearing. That having admittedly not been done, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner cannot be sustained.