Dismissed

Maharashtra State Electricity Board Workers Federation, through Upasarchitnis, Shri. Krushna Bhoyar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Ministry of Energy and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Jul 2014WP/4126/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging recruitment advertisements for contract posts were dismissed. The Court held that the issues require consideration by the appropriate statutory forum and declined to interfere under extraordinary jurisdiction, relying on the Supreme Court's principles regarding genuine contracts versus sham interposes.

What the court decided

AI extract

Maharashtra State Electricity Board Workers… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1/4 4126.14wp.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 4126 OF 2014

¶4

Maharashtra State Electricity Board Workers Federation.

¶5

... Petitioner.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents.

¶8

WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 4410 OF 2014

¶10

Maharashtra Veej Kantrati Kamgar Sangh. ... Petitioner. V/s. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. ... Respondent.

¶11

V.P.Vaidya i/b.Mahendra Agvekar for the petitioner (in WP No.4126/14).

¶12

M.S.Karnik i/b. Sanskar Marathe for the petitioner (in WP No.4410/14)

¶13

P.P.Chavan with Kiran Gandhi for respondent No.2.

¶14

Mrs.M.S.Bane, BPanel AGP for the State.

¶15

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. DATED : 7th July 2014.

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

By these petitions, the petitioners seek to challenge the advertisement No.1/2014 and the notification. Learned counsel for the

¶18

2/4 4126.14wp.sxw

¶19

petitioners submit that the petitioners are the unions of contract employees of the respondent company i.e. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. The respondent company without any authority of law issued a Correction Slip No.47 dated 6th June 2012 for engaging UpaKendra Sahayyak on fixed remuneration on contractual basis for a period of 3 years. The submission of the counsel is that this action on the part of the respondent is detrimental to the interest of the members of the petitioner Unions who are working as contract workers in the company since last several years. In case the respondent company desires to recruit persons on contract basis for the said post then the members of the petitioner unions engaged in service with the company ought to have been given priority. The learned counsel referred to the order passed by this Court on 27th August 2012 in batch of petitions. The said order is passed on submission of minutes of order. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers, (2001) 7 SCC 1.

¶20

The respondent has filed affidavitinreply. In para4 of the reply, it is contended that the last date for submission of online form for the post of UpaKendra Sahayyak was 25^th March 2014. The deponent has contended that the persons on whose behalf the present petitions are filed are already age barred and are not eligible to apply for the said post. It is further contended that the respondent has received 24,966 applications for about 1,974 posts of UpaKendra Sahayyak. The online technical ability test of the candidates has been completed on 27th April 2014. It is, therefore, contended that these petitions have become

¶21

3/4 4126.14wp.sxw

¶22

infructuous. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the Apex Court judgment in the case of International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers' Union , (2009) 13 SCC 374. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have alternate efficacious remedy, in case they have cause of action surviving in their favour.

¶23

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant documents placed on record as also the judgments relied upon by the parties. Para34 of the judgment of the Apex Court in International Airport Authority of India (supra) reads as under:

¶24

“34. This Court in SAIL (2001) 7 SCC 1 further held that on a prohibition notification being issued under Section 10(1) of the CLRA Act, prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work, if an industrial dispute is raised by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the industrial adjudicator will have to consider whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract, or as a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of statutory benefits. If the contract is found to be sham or nominal and merely a camouflage, then the so called contract labour will have to be treated as direct employees of the principal employer and the industrial adjudicator should direct the principle employer to regularise their services in the establishment subject to such conditions as it may specify for that purpose. On the other hand, if the contract is found to be genuine and at the same time there is a prohibition notification

¶25

4/4 4126.14wp.sxw

¶26

under Section 10(1) of CLRA Act, in respect of the establishment, the principal employer intending to employ regular workmen for the process, operation or other work of the establishment in regard to which the prohibition notification has been issued, it shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour if otherwise found suitable, if necessary by giving relaxation of age.”

¶27

The issues raised in these petitions require consideration by appropriate statutory forum, in case the petitioners desire to raise such issues. In exercise of exordinary jurisdiction and in the facts of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in these petitions.

¶28

In the facts of the case and in view of the law laid down in International Airport Authority of India (supra), we find that no interference is warranted. Both petitions are dismissed.

¶29

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶30

(NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶31

Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..

Maharashtra State Electricity Board Workers Federation, through Upasarchitnis, Shri. Krushna Bhoyar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Ministry of Energy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Maharashtra State Electricity Board Workers Federation, through Upasarchitnis, Shri. Krushna Bhoyar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Ministry of Energy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Shivaji Ramchandra Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Agriculture and Diary Development and Ors.

V.N. Kotiya Vs the Administrator, Union Territory of Daman and Diu

Mary Varghese Vs Union of India, through General Manager Central Railway and Ors.

Maharashtra Veej Kantrati Kamgar Sangh Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited

Maharashtra State Electricity Board Workers Federation, through Upasarchitnis, Shri. Krushna Bhoyar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Ministry of Energy and Ors.

Shailesh Pranlal Bhuta Vs the Commissioner of Co-Opearation and Registrar and Anr.