Union challenging recruitment of Upa-Kendra Sahayyak on contract basis dismissed as infructuous and requiring statutory forum. Age bar renders petitions moot.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/4 4126.14-wp--.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 4126 OF 2014
Maharashtra State Electricity Board Workers Federation.
... Petitioner.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4410 OF 2014
Maharashtra Veej Kantrati Kamgar Sangh. ... Petitioner. V/s. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited. ... Respondent.
V.P.Vaidya i/b.Mahendra Agvekar for the petitioner (in WP No.4126/14). M.S.Karnik i/b. Sanskar Marathe for the petitioner (in WP No.4410/14)
P.P.Chavan with Kiran Gandhi for respondent No.2.
Mrs.M.S.Bane, B-Panel AGP for the State.
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. DATED : 7th July 2014.
P.C. :
By these petitions, the petitioners seek to challenge the advertisement No.1/2014 and the notification. Learned counsel for the
2/4 4126.14-wp--.sxw
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 Upa-Kendra 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.
3/4 4126.14-wp--.sxw
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.
“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
4/4 4126.14-wp--.sxw
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.”
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
(NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitions challenging advertisements for contract recruitment and notifications require interference under Article 226.
Whether the petitioners are eligible to apply for the post given the age bar and completion of the online technical ability test.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront WorkersReferred¶16
Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Waterfront Workers
International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers' UnionApplied¶22
International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers' Union
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Maharashtra State Electricity Board Workers Federation
Maharashtra Veej Kantrati Kamgar Sangh
The State of Maharashtra
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited
NARESH H. PATIL
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
