AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A): The applicant, stating to had been engaged under the respondents-SAIL initially through J.D.Swain Contractor Modern India Market, Rourkela on 01.01.1983 and, subsequently, continued to discharge the duty as contract labour being engaged through other contractors, namely S.M.Islam & Association Rourkela Fertilizer Plant, Rourkela-I, and A.K.Rout, contactor till 31.08.1994, has filed this OA praying to direct the respondents to regularize his service as per direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rourkela Mazdoor Sangha Vs UOI & Ors. [1994 (5) SCC 313] and to grant all financial and consequential benefits flowing from quashing of punishment order. The applicant did not produce any such order of punishment nor has specifically pointed out which of the consequential benefits which flows from the quashing of punishment order but deprived of the same to him.
Respondents filed their counter stating therein that the applicant has filed OJC No. 2241/2000 seeking direction to the SAIL authorities to regularize him in the company since he has been working over a period of 10 years as contract labour. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 23.11.2000 with direction to the said authority to consider and dispose of the representation made to the said extent. His representation was considered and rejected, which was intimated to him in letter dated 08.9.2001, which order had attained its finality without being challenged earlier by him either before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa or even in this OA. After a long lapse of time of the said order of rejection, the applicant has filed this OA seeking his regularization under the SAIL on the strength of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in W.P.(C) No. 617 of 1986 dated 12.05.1994 [R.K.Panda & Ors. Vs SAIL & Ors]. According to the respondents, even by application of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court, he is not entitled to the relief as is claimed in this OA because the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court was that “if there is any dispute in respect of the identification of the contract labourers to be absorbed as directed above, such dispute shall be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), on material, produced before him by the parties concerned”. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case clearly held that the direction shall be operative only in respect of 142 out of 246 jobs because of the fact that 104 jobs of contract labour had already been abolished. The job in which the applicant had worked was not a listed job. The applicant had not worked continuously over a period of 10 years through different contractors of the company. Hence, his case is not covered by the aforesaid decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. However, his case was referred to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), who after scrutiny of the case of the applicant did not recommend for his absorption in the company. The case of the applicant did not stand in similar footing to that of other three contract labourers absorbed in the company as per the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.K.Panda and others (supra). It is averred that the applicant claims the benefit by citing the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rourkela Mazdoor Sangha but he is not entitled to any relief claimed in this OA since the said case was disposed of by the Hon’ble Apex Court by reiterating the orders passed in R.K.Panda and others (supra) and his case was rejected by the CLC. Further, by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of the Gammon India Ltd. Vs UOI, (1974) 1 SCC 596, Dena Nath Vs National Fertilizers Ltd, (1992) 1 SCC 695, and SAIL Vs National Union of Water Front Workers and others, AIR 2001 SC 3527, it is averred that neither the provision of contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 nor the rules framed thereunder by the Government stipulates any such provision that on abolition of contract labour, the contract labourers will be directly absorbed in the services of the principle employer. Accordingly, respondents have prayed that this OA being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.
Heard. Perused the records. We have also gone through the decisions referred to above.
Before proceeding further in the matter, we would to place on record the relevant portion of the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R.K.Panda and others (supra), 1994 (5) SCC 304, which runs thus:
“9.We are informed that pursuant to the aforesaid order, several contract labourers have taken voluntary retirement. But majority of them are continuing. On behalf of the respondent, it was brought to our notice that a scheme of modernisation is in process of implementation, which may result in the reduction of the labour force and many of the workmen may have to be retrenched as a consequence. Hence taking all facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, we direct that :
(i)All labourers, who had been initially engaged through contractors but have been continuously working with the respondent for the last 10 years on different jobs assigned to them in spite of the replacement and change of the contractors, shall be absorbed by the respondent, as their regular employees subject to being found medically fit and if they are below 58 years of age, which is the age of superannuation under the respondent.
(ii)While absorbing them as regular employees their inter se seniority shall be determined department/job-wise on the basis of their continuous employment.
(iii)They will not be entitled to the difference in their contractual and regular wages till the date of their absorption. After absorption as regular employees, they shall be paid wages, allowances etc. on a par with their counterparts, working as regular employees with the respondent. If in respect of any group of contract labourers, no rate of wages or emoluments have been fixed by the respondent because those jobs had not been performed by the regular employees of the respondent in the past, the contract labourers so absorbed for performing the said jobs, shall be paid at the minimum rate payable to the unskilled workmen, doing other similar jobs.
Central Administrative Tribunal(iv) After absorption, the contract labourers will be governed exclusively by the terms and conditions prescribed by the respondent for its own employees irrespective of any existing contract or agreement between the respondent and the contractors. No claim shall be made by the contractors against the respondent for premature termination of their contracts in respect of the contract labourers.
(v)The benefit of absorption shall not be extended to contract labourers who in terms of this Court's order referred to above have taken voluntary retirement on payment of the retrenchment compensation.
(vi)The respondent shall be at liberty to retrench workmen so absorbed, in accordance with law. This order shall not be pleaded as a bar to such retrenchment.
(vii)If there is any dispute in respect of the identification of the contract labourers to be absorbed as directed above, such dispute shall be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), on material, produced before him by the parties concerned.
(viii)This direction shall be operative only in respect of 142 jobs out of 246 jobs, in view of the fact that contract labour has already been abolished in 104 jobs.
(ix)This order does not relate to the persons who have already been absorbed.
(x)The persons, who had been retrenched, but in terms of the directions of this Court, have been taken back, shall also be entitled to the benefit of this order. If there is any dispute in respect of the identity of such persons, that shall also be decided by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central).
(xi)For the purpose of calculating the payment of retrenchment benefit, in the event of their retrenchment, hereafter, the 10 years' period aforesaid shall be counted, in respect such retrenched persons, although they are absorbed after the passing of this order.
(xii)This order shall be complied with by the respondent within four months from today.”
According to the respondents, in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the case of the applicant along with others were referred to the CLC and the CLC upon consideration of all materials on record, did not recommend his case for absorption, which decision had attained its finality being not challenged earlier by the applicant before the appropriate forum nor even in this OA. The said factum has also not been disputed by the applicant in this OA. However, after being unsuccessful to remedy his grievance through representation, he approached before the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in OJC No. 2241/2000, which was disposed of on 23.11.2000 with direction to SAIL authority to consider and dispose of his representation for absorption/regularization in SAIL. The SAIL authorities considered and communicated the decision giving the reasons as to why his prayer is not acceptable vide letter dated 08.09.2001 but, fact remains, the applicant was satisfied with the said order of rejection being not challenged the same before any higher forum or even seeking quashing of the said order in this OA. It is significant to note that if a primary rejection or declaratory order stands unchallenged and final, any dependent or consequential relief becomes legally unenforceable or liable to dismissal. When a foundational claim fails or is barred, secondary prayers cannot survive on their own and that even if an opposing party fails to explicitly plead limitation or laches, judicial bodies retain the authority and duty to prevent stale claims from unsettling settled matters, is the well settled position of law. In the instant case, the facts recorded above conclusively establish that the applicant remained silent over all these years when SAIL referred his case to CLC in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court for consideration of his absorption/regularization and CLC did not recommend his name for absorption/regularization under SAIL. Further, the Applicant remained silent when his representation was considered and rejected vide letter dated 08.09.2001. It not in dispute that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rourkela Mazdoor Sangha only reiterated the direction what was given in the case of R.K.Panda and others (supra). In view of the above, we do not find any justification to note the rest of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant since this case falls to ground on precious grounds that when the order of rejection or an initial adverse ruling is left unchallenged and attains its finality, the core legal foundation collapses being suffered from delay and laches thereby hit by the provision under Article 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
In the result, this OA stands dismissed along with MAs, if any, pending by making the costs easy.