Regularization of Contract Labourers - Award by Labour Tribunal Guntur - Since the Tribunal not consider the various facts & law and has to consider the latest developments - their lordships, therefore, partly allowed the writ appeal by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge and thereby, the award of the Labour Court to the effect that, (a) the reference made at the instance of the respondent shall be treated as unworkable since there is no uniformity in the conditions of appointment or nature of grievances of the employees, represented by it; (b) as regards such of the employees whose (i) services were regularised by the management or (ii) settled by payment of lumpsum amount or compensation, the I.D shall stand rejected; and (c) in case, any individual employees have any grievance about the retrenchment or discontinuance from service, it shall be open to them to raise individual disputes under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. - 2015 Telangana & A.P.(2014) msklawreports



 the appellants have
established LPG Filling Plant at Tadepalli, Guntur District and
another Plant at Kondapalli, Krishna District.  Different
categories of workers are engaged to carry out the functions in
the respective Plants.  
The union of the workers at Tadepalli
Plant approached the Government with a request to refer an
Industrial Dispute to the Labour Court, Guntur in relation to the
regularization of services of 52 workmen. 
 It was pleaded that
the workmen were being engaged as Contract Labour in  
contravention of the provisions of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short the Act) and in
that view of the matter, the appellants herein need to be treated
as principal employer. 

 The Government referred the dispute under Section
10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the I.D. Act) to
the Labour Court, Guntur.
 After contest by the parties, the
Labour Court passed an award dated 26.09.2001 holding that
the demand for regularization of services of claimant Nos.10 to
24 and 26 to 47 is justified and that they are entitled for
regularization from the date of their engagement either directly
or through labour contractor.
 A direction was also issued for
regularization of their services by absorbing them against the
posts in the appellant-corporation within six months.

 Whether the demand of the General Secretary, LPG  
Filling Plant Workers and Muttah Union and the General
Secretary, Coastal District Petroleum Products Workers
Union, Tadepalli, for regularization of services of 52
following workmen before the management of LPG Filling 
Plant, Tadepalli is justified? If so, to what relief the
workmen are entitled?

 The appellants admitted that out of 52 persons, as regards
whom, the relief was claimed, persons at serial Nos. 1 to 9 are
permanent employees at Kondapally, claimant Nos.10, 11, 12
19,21,23.,26,43, 46 and 47 are contract labour and claimant
Nos.28, 29, 30,31,32,34,37,38,39 and 41 are muttah workers.
It was further mentioned that claimant Nos.13 to 19, 22, 23 and
27 have already settled their claims before the Assistant
Commissioner of Labour.  In the course of discussion, it emerged
that claimants at serial Nos.22 to 27 are casual labour and 36 to
44 are transport workers.  
A semblance of comparison of duties
was also undertaken.  
On the ground that the appellants
themselves admitted that they have engaged claimants 10 to 47,
but failed to prove that those persons were employed through
labour contractor, the relief of regularization was granted, of
course, by undertaking further classification of those workers,
depending upon the nature of duties and method of
engagement.
Due to compromise with some of the workers, the single judge dismissed the writ.
Hence this writ appeal by others.

We are of the view that the matter needed a totally
different approach.  The Labour Court was under obligation to
take into account, the developments that have taken place so far,
namely, the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties
or regularisation of services of employees, if any, and to
concentrate only on such of the employees who still have any
grievance, than to treat the problem, as that of the respondent-
union, in general.

We, therefore, partly allow the writ appeal by modifying
the order of the learned Single Judge and thereby, the award of
the Labour Court to the effect that,
(a)     the reference made at the instance of the respondent
shall be treated as unworkable since there is no
uniformity in the conditions of appointment or nature
of grievances of the employees, represented by it;
(b)     as regards such of the employees whose (i) services
were regularised by the management or (ii) settled by
payment of lumpsum amount or compensation, the I.D
shall stand rejected; and
(c)     in case, any individual employees have any grievance
about the retrenchment or discontinuance from
service, it shall be open to them to raise individual
disputes under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D.Act.- 2015 Telangana & A.P.(2014) msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)