Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. Sri K.S. Nanavati, learned senior advocate with Sri Keyur Gandhi, learned advocate for respondent No. 4 appeared and stated that it is not in dispute that the services of the contract workers had been retrenched, it is pointed out that by a letter dated July 9, 2001, the contractor had expressed his inability to continue to perform the contract, which was accepted by the company by its letter, dated July 10, 2001, and the contractor retrenched the services of the contract workers by notice, dated July 11, 2001, and simultaneously intimated the labour authorities. Thus, the services had already come to an end much prior to July 23, 2001 when the present petition was flied and July 24, 2001 on which date the interim relief has been granted.

(iii) the company has not engaged any contractor but has allotted the work to his regular employees.

In view of the same it has been submitted that the petition has became infructuous.

18. However, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that as regards contention of the petitioner-union that though the petition has become infructuous, a lien should be created in favour of the contract workers and directions be given that in future, if the company decides to engage a contractor to do the work which the contract workers were doing under respondent No. 5, the contract workers concerned in this petition should be appointed. For that purpose, the learned counsel submitted for the respondent that this relief cannot be granted in view of the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers and Ors. (supra). The learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the case of Air India Statutory Corporation and Ors. v. United Labour Union and Ors., AIR 1997 SC 645 : 1997 (9) SCC 377 : 1997-I-LLJ-1113 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:

21. In view of the aforesaid judgment the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the judgment in Steel Authority of India, Ltd. (supra), nowhere provides that the contract workers shall have lien if the employer voluntarily decides to stop engaging contract: workers and distributes its work amongst its existing regular employees. The contract workers would have a lien to get employment under a contractor if in future the employer again decides to engage a contractor to do that work. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was not concerned with that situation.

22. It is submitted that the said paragraph, namely, 119(6) (at p. 1132 of 2001-II-LLJ-1087 (SC)) which has been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner deals with a situation of issuance of notification under Section 10 prohibiting employment of contract labour, but it does not create any lien in favour of the contract workers. It only provides that if the employer decides to recruit regular workers to do the work which the contract workers were doing, in the matter of recruitment preferences be given to the erstwhile contract workers, if necessary by relaxing the criteria regarding age and qualifications. It does not create any lien. Therefore, reliance on this judgment is misplaced.