Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. All these writ petition are filed by contract workers who are engaged by different contractors and all these contractors are/were awarded work by CPWD. All these contract workers in these writ petitions are claiming regular appointment/direct absorption by CPWD as their principle employer. It is not necessary to state facts in each case for the purpose of disposing of these writ petitions. It would be sufficient to mention that these contract workers have been working for varying periods which is as less as 1-2 years and as long as 18-20 years in certain cases. Admittedly every contract worker has worked for more than 240 days. Further, admittedly, no notification has been issued by the "appropriate Government" u/S. A href="javascript:fnOpenGlobalPopUp('/ba/disp.asp','82156','1');">10 of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) for abolishing the contract labour system in the CPWD in respect of the nature of work being undertaken by these contract workers. These writ petitions are filed at a stage when in most of these cases request was made to the "appropriate Government" for constitution of the Board to undertake the task of ascertaining whether the process, operation, for the work being carried on by the contract labour needs abolition. It has been the contention of the petitioners that the work being undertaken is of perennial nature and they have been doing this work for long time. It is further contended that the contract system is a camouflage and needs abolition and therefore in these cases the "appropriate Government", which is the Central Government in the instant cases, should issue nortification u/S. 10 of the Act prohibiting employment of contract labour in the process, operation and the work carried on by these contract workers in the establishment of CPWD through contractors.

11. I have given my considered thought to this aspect in the light of the legal position as well as factual matrix of these cases. There may be some force in the arguments advanced by the respondents. However, it is not necessary to go into these arguments in detail again because of the subsequent developments which have taken place in this case and I am more influenced by these developments while directing the interim arrangement which should be made in the intregnum. After all it would be a question of few months only when the whole exercise has to be completed and decision is to be taken by the Central Government one way or the other. The position as of today is that the Board has already constituted a Committee to go into the question of abolition of contract labour deployed in different ffices/establishments of CPWD in the schedule annexed to Resolution dated 30th March, 2000. Thus it is not a case where this Court or the Government has to decide whether there is a requirement for constitution of a Committee or not. Once a Committee is constituted which is to undertake the study of contract labour system in the jobs/work/process given in column 4 of Schedule annexed to Resolution dated 30th March, 2000 in respect of such offices/establishments maintained by CPWD, the Committee after undertaking this study would submit its report to the Board and based on such a report, Central Government as the "appropriate Government" would take decision as to whether contract labour system needs to be abolished or not. If services of these contract workers are dispensed with at this stage and ultimately it is found that contract labour in respect of jobs/work/process undertaken by these contract workers in respect of the offices/establishments where they are working, needs to be abolished and notification u/s. 10 of the Act issued to this effect by the Central Government, these contract workers would suffer irreparable injury and it may become difficult for them to get the benefits of such notification abolishing contract labour system. Moreover, when the Committee is going ahead with the task then in the meantime it would also be not proper if the services of these contract workers are dispensed with and fresh contract labour is engaged in their place. Not only it would cause injustice to these contract workers, it may prove to be counter productive even for CPWD if ultimately notification abolishing contract labour system is issued u/S. 10 of the Act by the Central Government because at that point of time CPWD would be confronted with a situation where not only the present contract workers ( discontinued in the meantime if not protected) but contract labour engaged in their place and working at that point of time would seek claim for absorption and regularisation with CPWD. That would be a worse situation for CPWD itself then the present situation where these contract workers are allowed to continue in the intregnum. Therefore, the least protection which these petitioners/contract workers require is that till the exercise u/S. 10 of the Act is on after issuance of Resolution dated 30th March, 2000, their services be not substituted with other contract workers. These writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the following directions:-

1. The services of these contract workers shall not be substituted with other contract workers i.e. if the respondent require to employ contract workers in the jobs assigned to these contract workers, then they will not replace the present contract workers with fresh contract workers.
2. In case of contract with a particular contractor who has engaged these petitioners/contract workers, comes to an end the said contract may be renewed and if that is not possible and the contract is given to some other contractor endeavour should be made to continue these contract workers with the new contractor. It would be without prejudice to the respective stand of the parties before the "appropriate Government" and their continuation would depend upon the decision taken by the Government to abolish or not to abolish the contract labour system.
3. These directions shall not apply in those cases where the particular contract of maintenance etc. given by other establishment to the CPWD earlier has ceased to operate with the result that CPWD is not having the work/contract any longer. In those cases it would be open to the CPWD to disengage such contract workers as not required any longer in the absence of work/job/particular activity with the CPWD.
4. If the decision is taken to abolish the contract labour in particular job/work/process in any of the offices/establishments of CPWD (as per the terms of reference contained in Resolution dated 30th March, 2000), as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation (supra) such contract workers would be entitled to be absorbed with CPWD and would be entitled to claim the benefits in terms of aforesaid judgment. In case the decision of the "appropriate Government" is not to abolish contract labour system in any of the works/jobs/process in any offices/establishments of CPWD the effect of that would be that contract labour system is permissible and in that eventuality CPWD shall have the right to deal with these contract workers in any manner it deems fit.