AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
The petitioner, in this writ application, has prayed for issuance of a writ/direction commanding upon the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 not to give effect to the Tender Notice No. RMD/C/CC/04 of 2005-06, dated 14.11.2005 (Annexure-4), whereby the Respondents-S.A.l.L. has invited Tenders from the interested parties for executing specific jobs, mentioned in the Tender notice.
The ground on which the petitioner has challenged the Tender Notice is that the same has been issued even during the pendency of the Reference Case No. 84 of 2003, pending before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad for adjudication of the dispute, which was raised by the workmen on the Management''s refusal to regularize their services.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the concerned workmen, who are represented by the petitioner''s Union, have been working under the private contractor for executing permanent nature of work under the Management of the Respondent- S.A.I.L. and they had staked their claim for their regularization in service under the Management of the Respondents- S.A.I.L. Learned Counsel informs further that a Notification was issued by the Central Government under the Contract Labour Act, prohibiting the engagement of the Contract Labour in the Mines Premises of the S.A.I.L. and yet by the impugned Notice, the Respondents have declared their intentions to engage the contractors for executing certain works in the same Mines Premises.
Refuting and disputing the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the Respondents-S.A.I.L. would inform that as a matter of fact, in the earlier writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 2348 of 2000(R), the petitioner''s Union had raised a dispute demanding a direction to be issued to the Respondents for regularizing the services of the workers. This Court vide order dated- 12.09.2005 had rejected the prayer of the petitioners for passing any order for their regularization. However, an observation was made that the aggrieved workmen may refer their matter to the Industrial Tribunal and till such decision is taken by the Industrial Tribunal, if the Management chooses to engage new Contractors, then they may do so with a condition, namely to ensure that such labourers, who have been working for the last 25-30 years shall continue to work under the new Contractors and in the Notice Inviting Tender such a condition has to be specifically mentioned.
Learned Counsel adds further that in consonance with the observations and directions as contained in the above order of this Court, the Tender Notice was issued and in the Tender documents, a specific clause has been inserted, whereby a condition was put that the proposed new contractors shall have to engage such of the workers, who have been working for the last 25-30 years.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid condition, as informed by the learned Counsel for the Respondents, do not appear in the Advertisement published by the Respondents-S.A.I.L. and therefore, the petitioner''s Union was under bona fide impression that the Respondents- S.A.I.L. has intended to engage new contractors, even ignoring the condition laid down by this Court in its order passed in the earlier writ application. Learned Counsel adds that on the assurance as now being given and appearing in the counter affidavit of the Respondents, the petitioner would have no grievance, if the workers represented by the petitioner''s Union, who have been working for the last 25-30 years, are engaged in service under the new Contractors.
In the light of the above facts and circumstances and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, there appears no further reason to retain this writ application on Board. This writ application is therefore, hereby disposed of reiterating the observations as made by this Court in the earlier writ application that the Respondent-Management shall ensure that the new contractor, who may be engaged, shall engage the services of such of the workmen represented by the petitioner''s-Union, who have been working since the last 25-30 years.
The interim order of stay is hereby vacated.