Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 723 (BOM)

SUDHIR KONDIRAM JADHAV v. BAJAJ AUTO LIMITED

2001-09-03

B.P.SINGH, D.Y.CHANDRACHUD

body2001
JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard counsel for the parties. 2. Amendment allowed. 3. In this writ petition, the Petitioners pray for a Writ of Mandamus to the Respondents directing them to abolish the contract labour system in respect of categories of Sweepers, House Keepers, Helpers, Garden Helpers or for jobs of the same or similar nature which arc performed by the permanent workers presently, or in the post of Shop Floor Sweeper of any other Section of the factory and category or jobs of canteen boys or same or similar jobs in the factory canteens, etc., and to absorb the Petitioner-workers mentioned in Annexure 'A' as regular employees of the First Respondent-Company. The alternative prayer in the writ petition is to direct the Second and Third Respondents to start proceedings under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 to decide that the Petitioner-workers are doing the work of permanent nature and those mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and on that basis to prohibit the said contract, and direct the Second and Third Respondents to take steps to absorb the Petitioners in Annexure 'A' in the employment of the First Respondent-Company. The First Respondent-Company is Bajaj Auto Ltd., which is not a Government Company but a private enterprise. 4. By amending prayer clause in the writ petition, the Petitioners have prayed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing Respondent No. 2 to make a reference u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act in respect of the demand of the concerned workmen for absorption and further demand of the concerned workmen that they are entitled to the emoluments and all other service conditions and benefits on par with the direct employees. It has further been prayed that this Court may restrain the First Respondent from in any manner terminating the services of the concerned workmen till the Reference u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act is made. In the main Petition, a prayer has been made for an order of injunction to the First Respondent not to remove the Petitioners mentioned in Annexure 'A' from the service, pending hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition. 5. In the main Petition, a prayer has been made for an order of injunction to the First Respondent not to remove the Petitioners mentioned in Annexure 'A' from the service, pending hearing and final disposal of the Writ Petition. 5. It has been brought to our notice by counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 3 that by Application dated August 24, 2001 filed before the Additional Commissioner of Labour on August 27, 2001, the Petitioners made a request to consider their representation sympathetically, and to issue Notification u/s 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, 1970, abolishing the employment of contract labour in the House Keeping, Canteen, Gardening areas of Respondent No. 1. It was also prayed that the Government may make an urgent reference to the Industrial Tribunal for appropriate decision in the matter. Having filed the said representation on August 27, 2001, the Petitioners rushed to this Court and filed the instant Writ Petition on the August 29, 2001. Counsel for the State, therefore, makes a valid grievance that the Government has been given no opportunity of even considering the representation made by the Petitioners. In these facts and circumstances, we fail to understand how we can direct the Respondent-State to make a reference either u/s 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 or u/s 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Such direction can be passed if the Government is shown not to perform its obligation despite specific orders of the Court or despite specific representation by the workmen. We cannot say that the State Government, in the instant case, has failed to perform a duty cast upon it by law. In fact, counsel for the State submits that the Government will take up the matter for urgent consideration, and pass appropriate orders. 6. We have also noticed that so far as reference to the Industrial Tribunal u/s 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is concerned, no demand has so far been raised by the Petitioners. Mr. Cama, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1, submits that they have not received any notice of demand, and, therefore, they are not aware as to what is the nature of the industrial dispute sought to be raised by the Petitioners. Mr. Cama, appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1, submits that they have not received any notice of demand, and, therefore, they are not aware as to what is the nature of the industrial dispute sought to be raised by the Petitioners. So far as the representation dated August 24, 2001, is concerned, that also gives no indication as to the nature of the dispute raised by the Petitioners, but Mr. C.U. Singh, appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that the Petitioners claim regularisation/absorption in service. 7. It is premature for this Court to express any opinion in the matter, but we may notice the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court that even on abolition of the contract labour system, the contract labourer cannot claim automatic absorption in the company concerned. 8. In the circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the State of Maharashtra to consider the representation of the Petitioners filed on August 27, 2001 dated August 24, 2001, and to pass an appropriate order, setting the machinery in motion u/s 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and thereafter to take a final decision in the matter of abolition of contract labour within a period of 6 weeks from the date on which a copy of this Order is produced before respondent No. 2 by any of the parties, or is served upon its Secretary in the Department of Labour, in due course. Similarly, if the Petitioners raise an industrial dispute, and represent to the State Government that the matter be referred for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal, the State Government will pass an appropriate order as it may deem proper within a period of four weeks from the date a representation for making a reference is made to the State Government. 9. The interim order granted on August 30, 2001 stands vacated. 10. Parties be given copies of this Order duly authenticated by the Associate. 11. Issuance of certified copy of this Order is expedited.