JudgmentJudgment 1. This writ petition is filed by the labour-Union of Respondent No.2-Mill. The prayer of the petitioner is as under:16.) (a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to terminate the services of the labour/workers who are members of the petitioner union and working for number of years in the Mill. (b) A writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from employing workers through Contractor; (c) Any other writ, order of direction as this honble Court deems fit and proper keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, be also issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Records of the Respondents be summoned: (d) Service of advance notices be dispensed with; (e) Filing of certified/original copies of the annexures P-l to P-4 may kindly be dispensed with: and (f) The writ petition may kindly be accepted with costs, throughout. " 2. The main prayer is, therefore, regarding restraining the respondent-mill from terminating the services of the labour/workers who are members of the petitioner-Union and are working for number of years in the Mill and for, prohibition of employment of the contract labour. The petitioner has mentioned that it is a registered union representing 900 casual workers, working in the Mill. They contended that they are working with the respondent- Mill for 14 years. Certain number of workers remained in job on regular basis as their services are required throughout the year and they have been made permanent. The workers have been working for about last 15 years on the maximum side and 4 years on minimum side with the respondent-Mill. The workers have been classified as under: 1. Permanent 2. General 3. Temporary 4. Apprentice 5. Probationers 6. Substitutes 3. It is contended that the season of respondent, being in the process of production of sugar, starts in the month of november and continues till the end of April in the following year. The workers employed by the respondent are termed as casual labour. The petitioner contends, that this definition is not applicable to the workers because they have not been employed for one crushing season but have been in service for more than a decade. The workers employed by the respondent are termed as casual labour. The petitioner contends, that this definition is not applicable to the workers because they have not been employed for one crushing season but have been in service for more than a decade. It is also contended that some time even the services of workmen were retained much after the end of the crushing season and requisitioned much prior to the crushing season obviously for various reasons for doing ancillary work. It is contended that the respondent is deviating from the settled policy and had started employing casual workers from open market through contractors. It is contended that this act of the respondent is against the Prohibition of contract labour as per Sec.10 of the contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "contract labour Abolition Act")- It is further contended that respondent No.3 is a very influential person and got members of the union forcibly removed from the Mill premises when they had gone to join duty on january 18, 2000 and got the President of the petitioner-Union arrested and his whereabouts are not known and a Habeas corpus Petition No.390 of 2000 is filed in this Court and the action is to deter the petitioner union from pursuing the interest of the members. 4. Respondent-mill (Respondent No.2)and respondent No.3 have filed a joint written statement and have denied the contentions in the petition. 5. Respondent No.1 has filed a separate written statement. 6. Annexure P/3 is a settlement dated february 24, 1999. Respondent No.1 has stated that earlier a demand notice dated january 6, 1998 was received and efforts were made for settlement and the settlement, annexure P/3 was arrived at on February 24, 1999. It is further stated by respondent No.1 that one of the features of the settlement pertaining to demand No.1 of the demand notice was that respondent No.2 management will prepare a seniority list of casual workers and in that seniority list the names of 25 senior most casual workers will be included w. e. f. April 1, 1999 as and when required, respondent No.2 management was to employ the workmen the same would be employed from this seniority list. It is further contended that no complaint has ever been received thereafter from the Petitioner Union-regarding non-implementation of the settlement dated february 24, 1999 and it is only after receiving the notice of the present writ petition, that respondent No.1 came to know about the grouse of the petitioner-Union about non-implementation of the settlement from the management side. The Management informed that in accordance with the terms of settlement, they have regularised the services of 25 workers, however, the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, could not contact any member of the Petitioner-Union as none was available due to the closure of work. It is further stated in the written statement that if the workers-Union had any grievance about the non-implementation of the settlement, annexure P/3, it may very well bring the same to the notice of the Labour-cum-Conciliation officer. It is also contended that regarding the employment of contractor labour, no complaint is received from the petitioner Union or any workman individually regarding the nonimplementation of the settlement. However, if the petitioner- union has any grievance it may submit a complaint in that regard and appropriate action would be taken. 7. Regarding illegal termination of services, it has been stated in the written statement that workmen may very well raise industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act")and mere apprehension Of termination is of no consequence in law. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. As mentioned earlier, the prayer of the petitioner is of not terminating the services and prohibition from employing contract labour. 10. I shall deal with the second prayer first. 11. Counsel for the respondents has argued that contract labour is engaged only as permissible under law. He has also argued that contract labour is not in fact against the settlement and the petitioner has suppressed material facts by not quoting the relevant portion of the settlement in the copy of the settlement, Annexure P/3. 12. The petitioner has produced copy of the settlement as Annexure P/3. In the said annexure, certain Clauses are quoted. The respondent has produced copy of the memorandum of Settlement during the arguments. The settlements regarding demand no.9 and 10 are not quoted. 12. The petitioner has produced copy of the settlement as Annexure P/3. In the said annexure, certain Clauses are quoted. The respondent has produced copy of the memorandum of Settlement during the arguments. The settlements regarding demand no.9 and 10 are not quoted. As per the copy of the settlement produced by the respondent, settlement regarding demand No.10 is as under: " (x) Demand No.10 : That in respect of demand No.10, it is agreed between the management and the Union that the management will give only those works on contract which are permissible to be given as per the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition), Act, 1970 and which have not been prohibited by the State govt. In view of this the Union thus agreed to drop the remaining portion of this demand as settled". 13. Again in respect of demand No.4 i. e. "general Conditions", the settlement regarding demand (f) and (g) are missing. They are as under: "f) That it shall be absolute right of the employer to engage temporary, casual, contract employees or keep contract labour as per the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act and other allied labour laws. (g) That having appreciated that Sugar Mills is a seasonal establishment and understood the implications of running it efficiently, it is agreed between the employer and workmen that whatever work/jobs/ occupation are presently being got done by the employer through contractors shall continue to be got done contractors by engaging through contract labour till such time the employment of contract labour is prohibited for any such job/occupation under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act. Such contractors workmen shall not be treated as the workmen of the employer and shall only be treated as the workmen of the contractor who engages them". 14. After showing the above discrepancy in the copy of settlement produced by the counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the respondent has argued that the petitioners have not come forward with clean hands and they have tried to suppress the relevant material while making their demands. It is clear that in the settlement there is a clear provision for engaging casual labour and contract labour. Respondents No.2 and 3 have stated in their written statement that for engaging contract labour, Registration of the establishment under the Contract Labour (Regulation and abolition) Act, 1970 is ensured. It is clear that in the settlement there is a clear provision for engaging casual labour and contract labour. Respondents No.2 and 3 have stated in their written statement that for engaging contract labour, Registration of the establishment under the Contract Labour (Regulation and abolition) Act, 1970 is ensured. It is further contended that contractors were engaged even prior to the settlement with the petitioner-Union and that status is not disturbed by the settlement. It is denied that there is any deviation from the settlement. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not been able to show that contract labour is illegally appointed. The settlement itself has provided for the engagement of contract labour, though those terms were deleted in the copy of the settlement produced by the petitioners. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have categorically stated in the written statement as under : "8. The contention in para 8 of the writ petition is wrong and hence denied. The contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition)Act, 1970 provides that only those works can be given on contract, which have not been prohibited by the appropriate government through notification. It is submitted that the answering respondents have given no work, which has been prohibited by the appropriate Government on contract. " Hence as the engaging of contract labour is not shown to be against law in the present case it is not possible to accede to the prayer in that regard, made by the petitioner-Union. 15 This takes me to the first prayer regarding illegal termination. First thing to be noted is that it is a prohibitory order which the petitioner-Union is seeking i. e. to say that the prayer is for directing the respondents not to terminate the services of the labour/workers of the petitioner-union. Settlement of demand Nos.1 and 2 as per annexure P/3 is as under: " (i) Demand No.1: Regarding demand no.1, it has been settled between the employer and the Union that the management shall prepare a seniority list of casual workers and in that seniority list the names of 25 senior most workers will be included w. e. f. April 1, 1999 as unskilled seasonal permanent worker on the Muster roll of the Sugar Mill. As and when the recruitment of unskilled seasonal worker is to be made, the same would be made from this seniority list on the basis of seniority. As and when the recruitment of unskilled seasonal worker is to be made, the same would be made from this seniority list on the basis of seniority. In view of this the Union has agreed to leave the remaining portion of demand No.1. (ii) Demand No.2 : The demand No.2 has also been settled in view of Demand No.1. And the Union has agreed that the seniority list will be prepared by the management and that out of that seniority list 25 senior most casual workers will be included for being appointed as Seasonal permanent in the category of unskilled w. e. f. April 1, 1999 on the Roll of the company. As and when recruitment to the post of Seasonal Permanent in the category of unskilled will be made, the same will be made on the basis of seniority in this Seniority list. In view of this the demand No.2 has been found to have been settled and accepted by the Union. " 16. It is the contention of respondents no.2 and 3 that the management has changed the manufacturing process in the mill and mat has resulted in the drastic reduction of daily rated workers. Regarding the said contention, there is no replication filed by the petitioner and therefore, it may be accepted as true. The respondents No.2 and 3 stated that as per the settlement, the management has taken 25 senior most daily rated workmen on the rolls of the mill as seasonal workmen and also provided benefits to them as per the settlement. This is not shown to be wrong. 17. It may be stated that the writ petition is very vague. It is not shown as to how the settlement regarding employing the workers as per seniority has been a fraud. Moreover, respondent No.1 has stated in its written statement that no complaint has ever been received from the petitioner-Union regarding non- implementation of the settlement. When the writ petition is vague in respect of the allegations of non-implementation as per the settlement, it is not shown as to how the petitioners have been adversely affected. Moreover, respondent No.1 has stated in its written statement that no complaint has ever been received from the petitioner-Union regarding non- implementation of the settlement. When the writ petition is vague in respect of the allegations of non-implementation as per the settlement, it is not shown as to how the petitioners have been adversely affected. If after the respondent-mill has changed work from the old techniques to the new ones and requires less number of workers, it cannot be said to have been at fault if all the seasonal workers are not given work in the subsequent seasons, provided that the seniority is not disturbed. Again at this stage, it may be stated that the petitioner was conscious regarding its right when the settlement regarding contract labour took place. 18. In view of the above reasons, I find no merit in this writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed.