TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yed by various contractors and were doing jobs which are perennial in nature and identical to what were being done by regular employees of the Plant. This Court having regard to the various interim orders passed from time to time did not relegate the workmen to avail the remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, inter alia, directed :- (i) All labourers, who had been initially engaged through contractors but have been continuously working with the respondent for the last ten years on different jobs assigned to them in spite of the replacement and change of the contractors, shall be absorbed by the respondent, as their regular employees subject to being found medically fit and if they are below 58 years of age, which is the age of superannuation under the respondent. xxx xxx xxx xxx (vi) The respondent shall be at liberty to retrench workmen so absorbed, in accordance with law. This order shall not be pleaded as a bar to such retrenchment. (vii) If there is any dispute in respect of the identification of the contract labourers to be absorbed as directed above, such dispute shall be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), on material produced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g in the jobs continuing to exist but not established on the basis of records enclosed with the application and those available with the Department including E.S.I. registration date. Category 5 : Applicants claimed 10 years of continuous working had not substantiated only due to short gap in finalization and award of the concerned contract. Category 6 : Applicants claimed more than 10 years of continuous working admitting gap to the period of 10 years which corresponds to the actual short gap in finalisation and award of the contract. Category 7 : Applicants claimed 10 years of continuous working or admitted that gap in contract having short gap in finalisation and award of contract but claim not established even otherwise on the basis of records enclosed with the applications and those available within department including E.S.I. registration date. Category 8: Claim not entertained as names of claimants do not appear in the wage sheets of covered jobs. The said authority further laid down a criteria that the matter relating to identification of the concerned workmen and determination of their period of work would be made on the basis of the Employees Stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he fact that the Provident Fund declarations were also not done by the contractors in respect of many workmen till 1986 when this petition was filed in this Court. In those cases, the workmen were not given Employees State Insurance Registration cards and Employees Provident Fund declarations prior to 1986. The workmen concerned, therefore, produced various documentary evidences of their employment since 1984 such as wage sheets signed by the officers of the principal employer, contractor and the workmen, Annual Provident Fund account slips, Service Certificates issued by the Contractor/officers of the Respondent company, tripartite agreements giving the names of the workmen, identity cards, wages slips etc. It was further alleged : ..The fact is that the retrenchment of these 1800 workmen is not a planned one or retrenchment forced due to surplusage of labour but merely an attempt to get rid of these workmen who had the courage to approach this Hon'ble Court for relief. In fact, all these workmen were, in fact and in law, employed through contractors. They were clearly covered by the principles laid down by this court in the recent decision of Justice P.B. Sawant in G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nothing to do with the subject matter of the writ petition which was disposed of by this Court. Mr. Shanti Bhushan would further urge that as the High Court is also an authority, the appellants herein could also file a writ petition pursuant to or in furtherance of the observations made by this Court in its order dated 16th October, 1995. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the appellants having filed I.A. No. 9 of 1991 and I.A. No. 10 of 1995 before this Court raising identical questions could not raise the same again by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the remedy therefor available to them, if any, was merely to approach the Industrial Court in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Mr. Vaidyanathan would contend that at the later stage of the enquiry, the Chief Labour Commissioner, Central, had also taken into consideration other documents produced by the workmen and arrived at a finding that no reliance can be placed thereupon. The question as to whether the concerned workmen had been continuously working for a period of ten y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
