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

APEX COURT DIGEST - Jan.2017 [6]

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that  the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the Act’).  -  whether  he  was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e. whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a  partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before  us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the  tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop -  the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in  possession of the shop in pursua...
Read more

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, Rule 1 & 2 and Sec. 151 and sec.94 of C.P.C - Police aid when to be granted - hear both parties when resisted - to avoid dispossession of actual possessor with the help of police aid - identify the property before issuing of police aid with the help of advocate commissioner if necessary - since the defendant pleaded that before the filing of suit and after filing of the suit ,he never trespassed into the suit schedule property nor violated interim injunction order - even though no evidence of violation of injunction not filed , the lower court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent when police aid is granted -2013 A.P. msklawreports

filed the I.A.No.175 of 2010 for granting police aid on the ground that the order of ad-interim injunction could not be implemented as the petitioners involved in violating it. In particular the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the injunction granted by this Court is being violated or the respondents damaged his quarry It is the case of the respondents that they did not trespass into suit schedule property before or after the injunction is granted.  What that is the case of the respondents, this Court feels that no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the police aid is granted to implement the order of this Court. "  the Court below granted the police aid aggrieved by which the present C.R.P. has been filed However, whereas great caution is to be taken for granting ex parte ad-interim injunction equal measures are to be taken while granting police aid to enforce that order.   Under the guise of an order of ad-interim i...
Read more