Disposed

I.O.C Contract Labour Union (Regd. No.714/84), rep. by its v. Indian Oil Corporation, Visakha Terminal

Telangana HC22 Mar 2010WP/12179/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to absorb contract workers into permanent service and abolish contract labor under the 1970 Act. Court referred to Supreme Court precedent and disposed of writ petition allowing petitioner to approach Supreme Court for relief.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to seek appropriate relief in terms of Supreme Court decision; no specific directions given.

I.O.C Contract Labour Union (Regd… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 12179 OF 1999

¶6

Between:

¶7

I.O.C.Contract Labour Union (Regd.No.714/84), Visakhapatnam, rep. by its General Secretary, M.Nageswara Rao

¶8

..... PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

Indian Oil Corporation, Visakha Terminal, rep. by its Chief Terminal Manager, Visakhapatnam and others

¶11

.....RESPONDENTS

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶14

The Court made the following :

¶15

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶16

WRIT PETITION No. 12179 OF 1999

¶17

O R D E R :

¶18

Petitioner herein is the Contract Labour Union of I.O.C. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the 1^st respondent-Corporation to absorb/regularise the services of the members of the petitioner-Union as fitters and Khalasis with effect from the date of their joining with all consequential and attendant benefits. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the Union of India to take steps for abolition of the Contract Labour under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short ‘the Act’).

¶19

It is not in dispute that the members of the petitioner-Union are the contract workers. It is stated that they are being engaged by the contractors for the purpose of the works of the 1^st respondentCorporation. It is also claimed that though many of the members are working for the past more than 30 years and the work is of perennial in nature, the 1^st respondent failed to absorb them in regular service.

¶20

Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents opposing the relief sought.

¶21

At the outset it is to be noticed that various questions arising out of the identical claims made by the Contract Labour were considered in detail by the Supreme Court in STEEL AUTHORITY Of INDIA Ltd. v. NATIONAL UNION WATERFRONT WORKERS^[1] and having discussed in detail the scope and object of the provisions of the Act, the Supreme Court has indicated the procedure to be followed.

¶22

Having regard to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decision, this Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the

¶23

petitioner herein to seek appropriate relief in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd’s case. No costs.

¶24

_____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 22.03.2010 IVD

¶25

[1] 2001 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1121

I.O.C Contract Labour Union (Regd. No.714/84), rep. by its v. Indian Oil Corporation, Visakha Terminal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I.O.C Contract Labour Union (Regd. No.714/84), rep. by its v. Indian Oil Corporation, Visakha Terminal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Ramalakshmi, Vs K.Ramanjamma

N.Chandramouli, Vs Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited

K. Srinivasulu Vs M/s. Shriram Chits (P) Ltd.

Mopidi Konamma Vs S. Rama Subba Reddy

k. venkata prasad Vs M. Shahanaz

Sri B N Reddy Vs Sri Ch Appalanarayana