Tamil Nadu Electricity Employees & Contract Labour Union & Ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Contempt Petition No.357 of 1993 & I.A. Nos.13, 15 & 19
(With Contempt Petition No. 354/93 in WP (C) No.555/90)
IN
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1820 of 1990
(With Contempt Petition No. 354/93 in WP (C) No.555/90)
IN
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1820 of 1990
Petitioner: Tamil Nadu Electricity Employees & Contract Labour Union & Ors.
Respondent: Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors.
Apeal: Contempt Petition No.357 of 1993 & I.A. Nos.13, 15 & 19
(With Contempt Petition No. 354/93 in WP (C) No.555/90)
IN
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1820 of 1990
(With Contempt Petition No. 354/93 in WP (C) No.555/90)
IN
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1820 of 1990
Judges: R.M. SAHAI & B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 05, 1995
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Recruitment of contract workers
Recruitment of 18006 contract workers in the Electricity Board – Considering difficulties pointed out by Respondent, the scheme of recruitment in stages was approved – Further directed that regulation for listed categories have to the complied with – Those found unfit or those not appeared be given another chance of being considered for selection – Time for recruitment extended – Respondents to absorb all remaining workers by March 31, 1998.
JUDGEMENT:
HANSARIA,J.:
1. It is said that the wearer only knows where the shoe pinches. This aspect has been highlighted by the counsel appearing for the contempt-petitiioners by urging that the recommendations of the Khalid Commission requiring the respondents to recruit 18006 contract workers within the time schedule specified by the Commission has been observed more in violation than in compliance. They, therefore, submitted that the respondents have willfully violated the recommendations of the Commission which were accepted by this Court. They contend with force that as the time extended by this Court to implement in full the recommendations of the Commission has also expired, the respondents are guilty of contempt and they should, therefore be dealt with suitably.
2. When this matter was heard at length on April 20, 1995, we had desired the learned counsel appearing for the respondents to receive instructions as to whether the respondents could recruit all the remaining workers by 31st March, 1995. To know this the case was taken up on 1st May, 1995 when we were informed that the ~4~ Electricity Board would on or before 30.9.1995 absorb/ employ 436 workmen and on or before 31st March, 1997 further absorb/employ 5500 workers of the contractors. As to the remaining 5506 workers, the statement made was that they would be absorbed/employed on or before 31st March, 1999.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective – Union were sore at the delay in recruiting/employing the workmen inasmuch as according to the time schedule mentioned by Khalid Commission in its report the target time for Groups I to V workmen was 31.12.1991. they, therefore, implored that the Board does not deserve any accommodation as regards the time schedule, because the workers have already suffered a lot and their agony has become untolerable and we may not therefore, concede t the unreasonable demand of the BoARD.
4. Shri Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the Board has, however, drawn our attention to the detailed affidavit filed by the Board on 6th February, 1995 mentioning as to why the Board could not act earlier as per the recommendations of the Khalid Commission and as to why it needs further time fully comply with the report. One of the aspects mentioned in this connection is that as per the recommendations of the Commission there has to be a matching employment I.T.I. trained persons in the ratio of 1:1 for some groups of workmen. That apart, the loss which the Board incurring year after year has been brought to our notice. The learned counsel urges that despite all sincerity and earnestness on the part of the Board it has not been able to work as recommended by the Commission and it would not be possible to employ/absorb all the remaining workmen even by 31st March, 1997, but would do so as indicated above.
5. We have duly considered the rival submissions and before we express our views on the time schedule to be followed it would be necessary to deal with another grievance advanced on behalf of the petitioner-Unions. Accoriding to the learned cousnel for them, the statement has made by the respondents in their aforesaid affidavit and what was stated in the Court on 1st may, 1995 would leave some 2000 workers in the lurch. This has been so stated because the total number of workmen to be absorbed is 18006 of whom the Khalid Commission mentioned about 7000 in paragraph 104 so far as the time schedule is concerned. It is no doubt correct that this number is 7000; but it has been averred in paragraph 7(b) of the aforesaid affidavit that this number would be 5985, excluding those found common in more than one list given by the Union. Of these 5985 employees 247 were found unfit by the Selection Committee instituted by Khalid Commission; and 588 employees remained absent at the time of scrutiny because of which they did not appear to be interested in taking job, as stated in sub-para (c). So, the number of 7000 aforesaid workmen would come down to 5150. Of these, 4381 employees have already been recruited and leaving a balance of 769 of whom 436 would be recruited in a phase manner by 30th September, 1995. As to the remaining 333 it has been averred in sub-para (g) that they had claimed tenure of more than six years but when the Selection Committee scrutinized their cases, it was found that their claim was erroneous and their service ranged from two years to five years. So these workment would not be eligible for absorption in Phase 1 and 2, of which mention has been made in the report of the Commission. They would, however, be recruited as an when persons belonging to their respective groups become eligible for recruitment.
6. the aforesaid shows that the shortfall of about 2000 workers about which mention has been made by the learned counsel for the Unions has been duly explained.
7. Coming to the extension of time as prayed for we are prepared to extend time till 30.9.1995 to absorb/employ 436 workers and time till 31st March, 1997 to absorb/employ 5500 more belonging to groups other than I to V. All the rest whose number would be 5506 shall have to be employed/absorbed on or before 31st March, 1998. In doing so, the number of Group V workers would not be confined to 485 as mentioned in paragraph 104(5) of the report as their number really is 1424 as given in paragraph 100 to which our attention has been invited by Shri Vaidyanathan appearing for one of the Unions. We make it absolutely clear that no further extension shall be given in this regard and the failure of the respondents to absorb all the remaining workers on or before 31st March, 1998 shall be taken to be an act of willful dis-obedience and they would suffer the consequences accordingly.
8. Ms. Indira Jai Singh, appearing for the Central Organisation of Tamil Nadu Electricity Employees, has prayed that in case of the workers who were found unfit by the Selectiion Committee earlier or who might be so found hereinafter, a forum should be made available to the petitioner-Unions to be approached in case they were of the view that the workers in question were/are not really unfit. We find force in this submission and order that in such a case it would be open to the concerned Union to approach the concerne Commissioner of Labour whose decision in the matter shall be final and binding on all concerned. Another submission made by ms. Indira Jai Singh is that qua 588 employees about whom it has been stated in para 7(c) of the aforesaid affidavit that they remained absent at the time of scrutiny and as such do not appear interest in taking job one more opportunity to appear before the committee may be given, since in a many cases the information about the interview reached them after the date of interview as stated in paragraph 11 of the reply affidavit filed by this petitioner- Union. We accept this submission as well and direct the respondent to give another opportunity to the aforementioned 588 employees to appear once again before the Selection Committee and then to act in accordance with the recommendations of the committee.
9. Before closing we have to deal with the prayer of the respondents seeking suitable directions on some fo the matters mentioned in paragraph 14 of the aforesaid affidavit. We allow the prayer made in sub-para (d), but state that the recruitments so made shall not affect the right of the workers at hand to get recruited as already ordered. As to sub-para 9(e), we observe that the regulations relating to reservation for listed categories shall have to be complied with but in doing so, the number of such categories of workers who would be recruited as per the order would be counted and it may well be that in that case the percentage of reservation is achieved if not extra recruitment shall have to be made as per the percentage of reservation fixed by the regulations in question. Qua sub-para (f) all that can be said as rightly submitted by Ms. Jaisingh is that the recruited workers would abide and abidefully by the Standing Orders of the respondent Board. They cannot be treated differently from other workmen after they have become a part of working force of the Board.
10. The petitions shall be placed for further orders on 1st May, 1998 if that be court working day; if not, on the immediately next working day.
1. It is said that the wearer only knows where the shoe pinches. This aspect has been highlighted by the counsel appearing for the contempt-petitiioners by urging that the recommendations of the Khalid Commission requiring the respondents to recruit 18006 contract workers within the time schedule specified by the Commission has been observed more in violation than in compliance. They, therefore, submitted that the respondents have willfully violated the recommendations of the Commission which were accepted by this Court. They contend with force that as the time extended by this Court to implement in full the recommendations of the Commission has also expired, the respondents are guilty of contempt and they should, therefore be dealt with suitably.
2. When this matter was heard at length on April 20, 1995, we had desired the learned counsel appearing for the respondents to receive instructions as to whether the respondents could recruit all the remaining workers by 31st March, 1995. To know this the case was taken up on 1st May, 1995 when we were informed that the ~4~ Electricity Board would on or before 30.9.1995 absorb/ employ 436 workmen and on or before 31st March, 1997 further absorb/employ 5500 workers of the contractors. As to the remaining 5506 workers, the statement made was that they would be absorbed/employed on or before 31st March, 1999.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the respective – Union were sore at the delay in recruiting/employing the workmen inasmuch as according to the time schedule mentioned by Khalid Commission in its report the target time for Groups I to V workmen was 31.12.1991. they, therefore, implored that the Board does not deserve any accommodation as regards the time schedule, because the workers have already suffered a lot and their agony has become untolerable and we may not therefore, concede t the unreasonable demand of the BoARD.
4. Shri Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the Board has, however, drawn our attention to the detailed affidavit filed by the Board on 6th February, 1995 mentioning as to why the Board could not act earlier as per the recommendations of the Khalid Commission and as to why it needs further time fully comply with the report. One of the aspects mentioned in this connection is that as per the recommendations of the Commission there has to be a matching employment I.T.I. trained persons in the ratio of 1:1 for some groups of workmen. That apart, the loss which the Board incurring year after year has been brought to our notice. The learned counsel urges that despite all sincerity and earnestness on the part of the Board it has not been able to work as recommended by the Commission and it would not be possible to employ/absorb all the remaining workmen even by 31st March, 1997, but would do so as indicated above.
5. We have duly considered the rival submissions and before we express our views on the time schedule to be followed it would be necessary to deal with another grievance advanced on behalf of the petitioner-Unions. Accoriding to the learned cousnel for them, the statement has made by the respondents in their aforesaid affidavit and what was stated in the Court on 1st may, 1995 would leave some 2000 workers in the lurch. This has been so stated because the total number of workmen to be absorbed is 18006 of whom the Khalid Commission mentioned about 7000 in paragraph 104 so far as the time schedule is concerned. It is no doubt correct that this number is 7000; but it has been averred in paragraph 7(b) of the aforesaid affidavit that this number would be 5985, excluding those found common in more than one list given by the Union. Of these 5985 employees 247 were found unfit by the Selection Committee instituted by Khalid Commission; and 588 employees remained absent at the time of scrutiny because of which they did not appear to be interested in taking job, as stated in sub-para (c). So, the number of 7000 aforesaid workmen would come down to 5150. Of these, 4381 employees have already been recruited and leaving a balance of 769 of whom 436 would be recruited in a phase manner by 30th September, 1995. As to the remaining 333 it has been averred in sub-para (g) that they had claimed tenure of more than six years but when the Selection Committee scrutinized their cases, it was found that their claim was erroneous and their service ranged from two years to five years. So these workment would not be eligible for absorption in Phase 1 and 2, of which mention has been made in the report of the Commission. They would, however, be recruited as an when persons belonging to their respective groups become eligible for recruitment.
6. the aforesaid shows that the shortfall of about 2000 workers about which mention has been made by the learned counsel for the Unions has been duly explained.
7. Coming to the extension of time as prayed for we are prepared to extend time till 30.9.1995 to absorb/employ 436 workers and time till 31st March, 1997 to absorb/employ 5500 more belonging to groups other than I to V. All the rest whose number would be 5506 shall have to be employed/absorbed on or before 31st March, 1998. In doing so, the number of Group V workers would not be confined to 485 as mentioned in paragraph 104(5) of the report as their number really is 1424 as given in paragraph 100 to which our attention has been invited by Shri Vaidyanathan appearing for one of the Unions. We make it absolutely clear that no further extension shall be given in this regard and the failure of the respondents to absorb all the remaining workers on or before 31st March, 1998 shall be taken to be an act of willful dis-obedience and they would suffer the consequences accordingly.
8. Ms. Indira Jai Singh, appearing for the Central Organisation of Tamil Nadu Electricity Employees, has prayed that in case of the workers who were found unfit by the Selectiion Committee earlier or who might be so found hereinafter, a forum should be made available to the petitioner-Unions to be approached in case they were of the view that the workers in question were/are not really unfit. We find force in this submission and order that in such a case it would be open to the concerned Union to approach the concerne Commissioner of Labour whose decision in the matter shall be final and binding on all concerned. Another submission made by ms. Indira Jai Singh is that qua 588 employees about whom it has been stated in para 7(c) of the aforesaid affidavit that they remained absent at the time of scrutiny and as such do not appear interest in taking job one more opportunity to appear before the committee may be given, since in a many cases the information about the interview reached them after the date of interview as stated in paragraph 11 of the reply affidavit filed by this petitioner- Union. We accept this submission as well and direct the respondent to give another opportunity to the aforementioned 588 employees to appear once again before the Selection Committee and then to act in accordance with the recommendations of the committee.
9. Before closing we have to deal with the prayer of the respondents seeking suitable directions on some fo the matters mentioned in paragraph 14 of the aforesaid affidavit. We allow the prayer made in sub-para (d), but state that the recruitments so made shall not affect the right of the workers at hand to get recruited as already ordered. As to sub-para 9(e), we observe that the regulations relating to reservation for listed categories shall have to be complied with but in doing so, the number of such categories of workers who would be recruited as per the order would be counted and it may well be that in that case the percentage of reservation is achieved if not extra recruitment shall have to be made as per the percentage of reservation fixed by the regulations in question. Qua sub-para (f) all that can be said as rightly submitted by Ms. Jaisingh is that the recruited workers would abide and abidefully by the Standing Orders of the respondent Board. They cannot be treated differently from other workmen after they have become a part of working force of the Board.
10. The petitions shall be placed for further orders on 1st May, 1998 if that be court working day; if not, on the immediately next working day.
