Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v. Bharat Singh & Ors

ORDER o

20.03.2013 C.M.Appln. No. L2604/2007(u/s 1'7-B of the I'D' Act'l I have dismissed the application preferred by Shri charat singh, the workman in WP(C) No. 315212007 which is on the same lines as the present application. For the same reasons, I find no merit in the application and dismiss the same. The application stands disposed of. Writ Petition (C) No. 3650/2007 In view of the orders, passed today in writ Petition (c) No. 3 15012007, this writ petition also stands disposed of. All the pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. VIPIN SANGHI, J MARCH 20,2013 sl Signed By:RAM DATT Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. ,.. ifl'riiil'i * 'rl .', r.:1'; , ,l .i.li1 ::"' r., ! li - ', . 16,$1iI,.i '., lt lrj ' :f" r'r ' ' , ,.r.''i . . 'r i lDato of Docision: 20'03'20X'3 -l- \x/ tr) /f'\ qX50/2A07 -f YY.,t .tvrJ^ev'-vv' I},fJ,N.I,, 'fhroughi Mr. t' Mt' vcl'sLls j .. 'I{esP.ondcnts Mr. Viklarn Nandrajog, Mr-Anrit Singh, Mr. Sheetesh. I(hairna ancl Mr' Silshil Jaswal, Advocate I'age, I of ,20 COUR.ll OF' DELI{X All NEW tr}'trtr,l.LXfi .,'ll.,.r'-' t ' . ,r:i'i;i,j'i;Ii1;:il ';; i i , :'. ii ;.r .i L.. ' l'; ''.. elOttann: I [ion't]x+xq MI{. .TU$T'ICtr vxx'}xN sAiYcI{x j... , '-"-*" ; {.'!'.'' {..:<-rr1',;i,. 1.,,' . i rl.lris"batclr of writ petitions unclei Article 226 o'Ithc Cons!,itr-rtiorr of , l,i.;: i' i;,..itnctiu lrnrrq,[29c' prel,err-ecl by Bharat Sanchar Nagam Liiniteci (I]SNL).to ' i'- r ' '!' awatcl passed by the Central Govet'nment Industriat .;,' ,, ;., 'lls$ail Lhrl 9pllilLloll awal'ct passeo Dy LIrs. \-srrLr.r t .,1;li'.." t, ,, i:l','lbirrtal qil1t l,4bour Cottlt II, Rajendra Piace, Itajcnclra l]liaivah' Ncw ' jr _'iii,,,:;,,t,'!,tt' '. ',1'1 "'iihlhi (e6l'l'), in .sevcral refei'ences macle. in rcspect of thc i'esp"onclent ' ,-{ i ' \\/orlfl1lt1l1. ,.''. , j.ii i, Z, .ti'li" rc.l.crcncc in. respect o[ cach of"the rn'orlcnan is inore or less' ', hhve .t'i,' :-, :,'i4cnLieal,'l'hpsanrcissuesarisefromthereferenccsand;conseqt'eiitll i i " ; i ' ;ffir',, *ior in trie comrnon award passecl by thc ccIT. zr"'un q{flnpie, I ',"',i:', I ;;; rapreclusiug treicin bclow tire refe'enge made in respect cf sh' E'albir I -: :, l llr,!t,((i,) i,(intJ!50"i6/?007 & orLer aortnectel tnutters ' '',iu,i,",' i 'ii' , rl ', " I' ll ". r"*ri11;'.,i-,1"i'':i'' "" I rt ,' , ,l 'I{f;T:'{:iil'l'l:5.iiigli-tno ieipqnit.nt in W,p.(C.) No.3 64e12007, whicla l'eacls as lollows: , ' i,f ii; tt , I ,tsllllBll:' l-r+v :- '\ - / r " ' :{'Jil:, ,i , :-', ',i' , , : :'o{:ij"l"'.1"!';.'';i.1"1, ' i : , _ ..'-ri.,,'. . - .,. l. 'i '.t'fyrhsfubr the action of the nxalxagement of GI/ITD, IiSM, .i i'i,.'' :. ' ' ,' ,lictric{ctbacl. in ter.minating/disengaging the services of Sh. trq : Bal.bir" Singh So Sh. I{h.aian Singh yv.e.f .01.09.2002 vvithout qempbting t'vith the provisions of the ID Act, 1947 an(yoy- ,., , 'i' , I , "nni2iriig of tenxpo,ary statL$ on hiru in abcordanc.e with. the ij'.n'i"ipcjprs-Schen,leofSeptember]993an4thereby'hon ', ( li , r:"u,gu,lArizing his services in terms of pryovtsiohs of Cf{l.t(ll A;, Ig70 employecl throttgh secrrity contractors viz. IUI/s l' , 'i.i,'i*'on''irli,i,ii'ii;;r," a;i; i{",i,i s,i,o)ny services, M/s . , ' ' ! Attttrltclha sectn ity services was just,.fair and legal? If n9t, , :1'. ,'' - *,1' t ".1 itr ' ; r loi j, " 'i'n" cGI'r bv the'impgglecl award has answeled thg,i'efelence irr I\_ ', .,: 'g "i:;. ; ,,' , f :"i. .1 :.. '1i,,, :'."ii L.n :l i 1i,,uo,.,,, of 'tlrq;wor"lcrnen by holding .that the action of the pctitioner ' ' llltlnagQlTlent nagQlrlenl lnin tqnninating/dilsengagmg serulices of the worlar.ran without conrplying with thE provisions of.Inclustrial Disputes Act, lg41 (tlie lt'ct), 'i' ..' ' ! ' "' rl gonfgliing tqmporal'y status on theiir in accordance with the ,i i;.; ,'rfll.lll itt !r, , rpurary sLttLLtD u ' -',,', l-t>ppai"tprent <iI Pcrgonnel'Training (DoPT) Scheme of Septernb.l 1993 ancl '.1. ,' ,i',, 'ther.eby't1Ql-l"egt1larizing thdir sclvices_:l t"I*t of the provisicns of the ,::l'icouti4qt '[ralrqrrt.(I{egulation ancl'Abolition) Act, IITO (the cLRA ;\ct) l:- ; l;i ',,*n.,ployqcl lhr"otlgh.security contractors namely, \zvs. J'uxrnarr Secririty . .r't,,-:.' 'i- . ;. ^ \r, : '.' irtgerierl M/s l(eshav s.ecuriry Ser'vices, M/s. Anurbdha Seculity Ser-vices is ;,l,1ii..,,ji jr,rf 'or,.l'ir o. legal. 'fhc rnarlageffrenthas been diriectecl to r-einstate all "],' ,i'..i''tr*r,jinclent-worlcrnen, Some of the woricman in respecL'of *lto*l .l "t'i', i ril'^' "l :*r "- rctbrgnogs wel.e macle had. not led theil eviclence and, consequently, no such .sequently, :"t'ir i : ' .I:t;; ; .' ;' ;i:iiil,iil,'l' 'l clirestiein has beErr issuecl ip lespect of them. They are not beforp this Court' l..",i.-,:..]..l:i'.:d!rQQIl9l-llt45uq';jl'IPDLrULFl+rrvofJvvu : '' :'r"'' I ; : awat'de d' 50% b I respondeut workrnan ' :t. '' .' . .,'! r' ,. ,.' .e. i:,I'!iE g0I'1'lias also awar,ded 50Yobac|< wages to the respoirdent..wo, ' ..;,:i, '", i'i \4/,Q,,[', 01 ,09,20Q2, .' , " .i','..i ,'l i ,ji,!|]',.,,i|.i.lll;,.ii,. Puge 2 of 20 ll',,P,(.'.) Not, J t50=56/?l)07 '&' other connecled nulters !,'i,',' I ,''i'li'l\Et;

ii) Whether th r the non conferring of temporary Stattls o1'I the Worlcman in accorclance with. DoPT Scheme of'september 1993 was fair just and legal, and; ' iii) Whether-the non leglllalization of the services of 'the wodcman in terms of the prov.isions of the C},RA' Act - ., glnproyecl through Seculity cohtractols, was ' jr"rsi fair ancl legal, l:;:irij ,,,,, 1:ii,1,"; l' . lil 'flre tennination/clisengagetnent of the services . of lt" 'j""'i'.,.t' '. wor,lcman with pffect from 01.09.2002 - uihetliei-tire sarle Was illegal on account o-f rion compliance of the provisiolrs bf '' .' If

1., . (' l'r, :, .'': i , .s l.,qar.pecl connsel slrbmits that the terms of leferenbd di'l not r.efer ; :,.' L -l! t"!\.t''!rrrv!1 vvLr^---' 7-'-'^ - : I . 'i; ,, r tlie.isslrQ witl'r regarcl to the .contracts betwejen the petitioncr ancl the ..^ntractol-s, nangly, the three service.security agencies mentir:nQd in the " : i OQlllfzlL:L0t 5, ll4rrrvr/ ' Lrrv Lruvv evr ' . t '",t l, " rur,r,, o{, rci,gyence, being shap or a camouflage, for'-ac1jr-rdicartion by the: l'- /a^1.1r ..rii' I : : .r .:t.Li(ftl,.. ,j:t", t.l,i , ir'}. -'.i. i -r -,.:11. r .! qt,.: j t., ', li . ' tu , i,r''ilili'ri'i fi,i i,r.!:; ' - "i!, i oiursel for the petitioner slrbmits that in the BSNL there t,i !l , .,.. t.,ij,i,i'611t . , Ir94Ilr9O ,COLlnSel lOl LIlu PELrLr(Jrrur DLrururLe ,'',.1i:-, :,r{" I'"'r*i;,.".' I, t:t;i: ' l; , ili,,' * pfagtige of appointing labour: contractors for providing of secr-u'ity . .,', , .', SerViggS, .She Sutrrnits that such cbntracts were iegal, as thet'e.'was nb rl l;l::iii.j,.l':;. -il i r' , trj' ' 'l l:1.; , , ,. ',,;'rji,:]1..;i .;prjcrliilrilibil .,Ligairrst tlre einployrnent of contr.act labor-rr for provision of "'.t ," ,, lli , '.., ri ri,.. , ' i . : 'r ', ii , il' | : j ,' *l;,:j '.rl;ir-,. :l ir."; ;r I I .t .l . r . 'it.ii" :. ",i i.':'. ' i !' .l ;.. tqI:*,1 .,'-i'')', ll 'i , r. t 1 " -"r1"'P^ Pugi 3 of 20 r-"1 - r etr cl/1ll/l'f .lt-tiltoc |ttrtnpt'lpll I 'ii'5t,,', r3'ir,r;:" tl,:r,(:,) N,o't,',1!5Q'56/2007.& oiltgt'cprtnecte.tl '1\(dters' P '1' I I r I I' i tl.r !: . ; - :,. i' .. -i... security scrvices.- as no notification under section 10 of the GLI?'A 'Act had' i lrccn isbLrccl by tl-rc Central Government. . She submils that eariibr prirrate ' i.: ' :-"'-" .t , ^^.^*^.. rentioned in the terms of refei.ence,'vvere ', '$ggUrity'agerleies - such as those"inenttonecl m the "';; rt d. Flowever-, an offrce me!+orandum dated 01:02.1999 ':, i . i. , also. ljeing eflgagect' Flowever', an offtce merllora '' li' a$ is$uecl by thc Departrncnt of Pubiic lSnterprises, which was latcr' "'rri i '; j ' wr" ' ;";1"";;,:"; tecl 26'04.200r. T'hev , ".i r' -l '",,1;,i,'l:l i: ,,.lOljqivp.l by tlie l)efenqe Ministry's circula1 dated 26'04'2001' " i: ' ii,,,'.' ,rEiiuir"d tha! all IISNL establishments shot-tid engage the securit-v persolx]ei ,:il ," .:,,.,'.,li.o,o ttre l)irgeler Gsnelal Resettlement (DGR) spopsored agencies o'nly' 'l:il;: ,. .,;,lil : . ,,'iuoii.itt,rl;ill: i ,:ijn p-ut ,r,itp that in the light of the aforesaid instr:r':rctions' 'BSM'. riri,'.,.r'::.l,ll:l ; I ,i1i:,ri; :r,.'i .r lidsLrqcl zi rrQulor4ndum dated 03.04.2002'incorporating thc saicl cbndition' ' *l: if ' :' ' ' 'i contracts w1h plivate secilrity agencies which. were not ' .r' :. :i I'rr , r . 11.o1-rscQUen![y, th9 contracts with i:rivate secilrity agencles whlcil.'v ,,,.,", ,,,.,,,r,. uponrQre-d by the ncn hacl to be discontinued' Learned counsel subrnits. i ' r .r ,l . --^l-:.1^^ ^^:l ^^^rr,-i{'tr onnt :;,,-,ri1pi1r.i;,;.1;,i.,,: r,1hAt Alt thg lq'!?O.n.lents \rygre employecl through the said.secr-rrity agcncles' ): '.1.1..'l ,' , 'l{lliilt'ii't,j:,,i,{"ri,': , I,eained counsel tbr the petitioner has drawn'the attentiqn of ilre ' , 1'1,',' ,; i ','"'l r . i (lerr,,t to rllc jr-rdgrnent of the Division Bench 'of this Cou[t tn l{esfuut) securitjt servic*s Lttl. t,. (Jnion oJ'Inclia & ors.,2O04II A'D' (Delhi) 469' .l.hg pefiLiO[er I(*shav Sec'rity .Services Ltcl. had sought to assail '1he '' . [. pr-eseiiptiori laiCl down by the Departmer.rt of Enterprise.s' ?s afor"esaict' fhat I pnly DCR pponsorecl^ aggncy be engagecl fpr providing securit-v.servibef lo ',1. l.hc r:cl.iti ot-rgt, 'a t,'; , g, . ' .l'hc Division llench rejectecl the saicl challenge by hoiding'that it ,'vulnotneQQssaryfor.'tlreI}sNL.toacloptopenteirder'1j.:*'.' l gngAgglTren1 of 'secr'rr-ity services, and the petitioners action of drar'vi'g I sc.rtrity pe*sennel through a DGR. sponsored agency'\'vas neither artlitrary ; Puge <t"of 20 ii,1;,, '. i;.i..+, , ir'. .tl,,r :l: J 'til1o1t"'1 .).1'J'I.: I :i:iii,;i ,:i:ililnOi,;ctiisii,fiiri*LQtI, a*cl tfie same wasJrelcl as not being violative of Articie {";t 1 i', ii '; :iii .' :,', ':r | 'r ': ' 1' :t . " |, I I Ft lJI Lllq \-\,lrpLlL\rLrvrr :li:,,,..|' '..,' ly,t',((:,) Nol, J t 50'56/2fltfl7 A ott'a' contrect.etl tttutters t, -t I , , . . ilg, LEaurec[.counsel for the petitioner has sllbmittecl that a perLlsal of l' ,:'r ,: . ' . ,r :,-- ^--:1-. -^-^,-:^^J ^- o G,".lir.c flrcrf .fhe ] ," ' .Lhe awarcl shows that the seime is primarily premised on a findi.ng that the 't" ' r ,r - -^ -----i+-. ^-^;^;^- r!'a1-a ol.iar.r ot.rl q '' /een the petitioner anct the security ageircies were sham ail.d a , :'.gQntfAQtS belweeu LlIe P€Lltrurrr'

¶1he submits that'the saicl isslte dicl not alise fo1 cop.si{eration' trefOrg tlrc CGIT - either frorn the terms of reference, ol: cvcrf fiom the plczrclings o{'thc pa,1iAs. She has lefened to the following extratct from the t0. t.*';, .: r ' i'ipLrgnecl awarcl to submit that ihe discussion and finding of the CQIT t? the ' ;it ii '..' l: 'r,., ' .,; . .r ^+ r^^r--.^^.^ .rl-^ ,^o{.irin,rar-o'"rl t.|.,. cer:rriji tv aoe.iicics .are ' 1,,'1 ,, ' ii,, gi';a't,tliat tl.re .oontract betwccn the petitioner and the security a-gcilcic's at'e ;-, r.- -j "'i' '- ' i'r' L ir "{': ,r r r.r ^ l^^:^:^- ^.1 +.1-^.t--il.rrr"ol ir" Forrnttr. n'l: i,.: 't, ii sharn.zird a camoullage l'ras swung the clccision of the tribr-inal-jn fpvolrr'.of 'l'u;,''i' " I , .{,{i;,,, ,ri.'.1:i.:i,LhE W'fkniAl'}, The reieV4Ut extract in the award leads bs follows: "' ''" : i', ' .. 1: ': ', i'* ": r , . . ''.1'"',] , 'r.ill lrnort*n qui;n obviotts that the *or,rr"*ent has ,ro, nl"ta, ,,: i . :i,' , ,., \op]y of even. con|Tact agreeru.ent lvith the cQntractor yd: . .'i:;' ; l'll i " '1.,i1',,rr ir,",, , , C{eQL-m'lgruts regcu"cling payment to the contractors' The .'t.r_. ' t','i ,, : ;i',[.ii."!i.'-ii1l,;J,.ii1,..;,", ' i. ,^191"16fu'ert have ,filecl attendance 'sheets to'shovv tlleir fi:^;i:f "iil!ti:tl': '.i I : ;;;;;';;;. The ruenasement has not-cteniect the photocopies r;'!" .'l'',i,' ,'iJ orr,rnclonce sheei filecl by the vvbrlcnten..There'.is no _'.-., sl.qtecl. i.n his cross examination that photocopies are not.tru.e -,':;t,.', ' I C:opies of the original attenclance sheets.'The ori'ginc/ ,,i;iiitji,:,:it,iltit;il,ti,iij,...ja|,|en.€I,arrceSheets:arein|:hepoSseSSion.ofthewana8en7ent., -.ii,:,ir,;ii!'i',.', ,,"".1-" ,tli tii trto,lcn'ten'cannot be-expectecl to fiIe the sam'b' The : ''. l-r i.- .,;.' ' .,i i:i i';ij:,',:.ii " " .14,91'lcnten hat,e.fitect attenclance sheet from Jant'nry' 19,9,6 to ''..*l:..',;.;:.;.i1,;,',',/q,wQry,1ggB..Theseattenclanceshe'etsareadtniisi,bletn-'. ' '',,.' : .i.'ir:ii ! ,. 'i ''uiiitini as the oiiginals are n .the p?:t"::-:i:^_1, ,'!n v t tYt,vl7- - i- . " :,ImanQgeruent'Thisproves'thefaq.tthattheworkinen.have -.: I i , --? i^^ a^-^a^^^-w.aul rre .lartlyih) " ,'.' I ';':,,;:;i;r; :i iil prin ir^ of the manasernent cts sectritv : ' I I tiru'tit'ts\' front J''n''o'y' 1996 to Jarumryt' 1998" ' ' ' ," l';, ,i .' r . : Qttards contiru'rot'rsfit Jront Jt ,irT,,',!' .. ,i : - ;i i'.'i ','rti.'il' ,'"i .: - 1 ri . :l ' Tlle cqse of the vvorlcn'ten is that.they were'engaged in 1,994' r . .,. Puge 5 t;f 20 | ,' .# Lls I , :'.: , it': '' : ", , 'l{'t., .. ,'. ',, *.. , , l,'rq | ,, j 1":,.113 1.i t I ;lil.' " r'.,: I . 'r" -' , 'ir"ilr; ''r ;:,j .i, 'r, ,, li i J,- Ji."r l? .- r . i I .lr r- -' ,"i4:ir{FYF tlfr; r' I -'.t, / 'r ' tl'r d:la il , 'l.t .'ill'. rlr' r !:, i'; 'i ,i,*ii4 ;i,,liiii,ri, i,' i - I{19 l't'vtlv(,1.v'L "e?v.v t . -''.-',"; ..,,'r1:, r arld control of thie rndnagenxent, Dutlt-was ;":ii6i;,,1;,.ri|1i';' I' l' .' '.t. SLtrper\)lston - :i;',:ri-.'i,, ;, , i, eiitisnecl to the vvorlcmen by the Junior Engineer af the "':,i::i:'l-i,'j,,.,.,, (r,s,yignecl to the yvorlcmen by the Junior Engineer ai the '.- i!''li';' 't i ,i; ,, I ,, nnq;agement. It yvas the brrclen of the managenxent to prove 'i ,,.' ' :'l ; i ,'i'ioirne Qontt'actors have made payntent to the worlon'en' No : ' .. tt*l,l I :. ,:ii tgg5, 1996, 1g97, Iggy and they have worked continuously 'l,if i,ir,',,,', :':ii i,lr.' -1 tiil 01.09,2002, The chart of the dtration of worlc of the ',:lii;riilii ';;:il!rl i,:) ,i'yiorlmten has been given. : .,'lr. ,' - i ,. '-t ' 'i 1l | \uorlqrueft ft{'t'J ueert ELvYft. i.t' il;,'r '. ' " - r ;a';1111'1"*'.'t". ". '' "i'The y,orlcruen have cleposecl that they vvorlcecl itncler the .h:'.1 : ,*,, b:l:.i I '':".'I ,. lr such papet' in proof of the payment belng made by tlte' | - - L ^^-^ -l:t^S L-,' tI^) . " , ',. i ,' '. ' ' c'otilraclQrs to th; '''o'h*in has bean filed by .;,.thb :' ';' t tllanageYtlent' rlt, ' , ' " lt y)as ftrther sttbmitted that there lvAS no contract ' Jt tfete t-" -'--' ctgreenxenf befuveen the contractors and the managentent' .[h" y,orlc*.en were talcen clirectly by the'managemenf'- The i,l , I i. . I uqnt,ctctors \)ere nlere nanxe lender. Th.ey got".sonxe ii.,"'::',, iconxruission. i :' r' + .r., ht case of real contract there i1 3gree7tu":,bn!Y1-'l:^ ' .martagemlnt anc{ the "conlractor foi sttpply of t'vorlatletx on certain terms a.ncl conclit.tons.'lVages afe to be pcitd by the . contractor, EPtr' is to be cleposited by. the contractor.'.The ( ,,orlcrnen cffe enroll.ecl tn ngC. The m.anagentenl hcts' not - ', | "-'":-'-':- u-, ,,1r--,, i I " | ' ,"n,,ooo,o of-tnZ worlrmen and their ndmes vvere registered by '."i.ii n,,..f; : ,j,;1, t, i; .j ., ,,.t)ages of the worlrmen !"d_their ndmes vvere reg$tered Dy - ':ti.' . " : ' j f hi conifctctors tmder the ESIC ScheTne' No suc.h doctnnent ' 'l,: ^, ; ,. ,,.,, ,, hqt beqrt filecl' This proves that there vvas"no confi'ctct m ,'' jrl .l ' n.n.ta*ouno n-rl tha wnylrynp.n worJcecl direCtlV underthe cOntrol ; ilr lr.:r '' ' ",, " ,')iiirrnnre hna the yvorlcmen lvorlcecl clirecfly underthe control ' ' ELli LOI LU9 wn' 'v' c' 1," '' : ancl ntpervision of the management. Thevvorlcmen cannot be .; , "t , : i li,] ,r,...r. , ,, . i,.i ex.peqtec{ to fite t{ips of EPF ancl the Registration Card i'tnder " ,'ii', ., ' :iii, - : , :.i': riSfC ,'ih,rsL are matirial cloctments for a valid contract bt'ff ;,...i't' i, t I i Lte sLuQh cloatment has been fi'tecl by the managemeni' The. ;*1til,ii:iil ,l'*'- :"")l;ii"1^pnL, hor" rtt:/. yfo.toconies of aftendanc" ^.::"::- F:llllIl;Ifl t1'*'''' t"*lt'ii)ffildnbp have filed photocopies . oJ affenaance 'sfteels ;.+ilii ;i.,li1ii,ri. ;,, . ' 1,'r,urtitfiect b), the. Stib-bivisional Engineer, sDE and the :,qi','i i' ':: ii ,, '' I i,iii,r-hniirn"r ancr these cro*rments have not beei denied ',"' l', t r i:',i 'l'' cr^ :+ ^+n,^)o n-n^ror] thnt /:lq.e vvorlCnlen br the nxanagemnni. So it stancls proved that the vvorlcnten 'io_ir'rrnrkecllfrom Igg4 onyvarcls o, hr,t been specifibd in the :it;\ilfinerl r.. "L tr l .' i, -l lr 'l- . 't l,l',P,(Q) ittol;, 3 150"56/2007 & othet connected nratters i rl -l ,.; t, ". 1.'- | , ti , ' tt'J, ' - - .r "_ -.-._ Frtge 6 tf 20 qoullsel for the petitiondr subtnits the petitiouer and tlle contfactors that the statement of by tlre 1'espondent worlcmen is iclentical. In the said 1tflcmcnt. of is not a whippel,to sttggest.that the security corrlract.s errtered were shain or camoufla$e. I statetnent of claim is rather shofi and cryptic' The relertant pail of I'qadp as fpllows; , ti : ' ,,l, 'l'h€tl the Clairuant/Worlcmcm. was '.employed.by the 'ctbove .. ,tl,tQTctgeruent s.ince l;eb. Iggg and at the relevant period'was_ " i |i;iti"g as a S, Grtarcl ancl was drawing a monthly wages.'of , , Ils, 2650/-. 2, That the ytorlc'and iondttct of the'vvorlcman was cltLite iatisfactor'1t ch'rtng the periocl of employtnent' I , ,, Ii. 3, 1.hat the DI1AIAND NOTICE of claimanthvorlanati nxay alsobereaclaspartoJ'thiscIaimstitement'Thephoioci,opyof ' .the Dentrutcl Nittrc it enclosed as Annex:A wi'th this claim sta.tement, | .-r ', 4, Thqt yhe ctforesa.icl managem'ent termtnatecl t!1e ::r::,'^e^t ?I r,l , i ' fhe €tlo))e nirtrd t't,orlcmatt wtih ffict from 01 .09 2,C02, by i v'erb)a! or6ler. This is o. case of refi'tsal of &'ty-and amottn!1 to " , lu,nnlincflion of seyvices and ritrqnchment arid tha.t too t,ithout . ..1 QQntpliewce if ,t," manda.tory pre-reqLttsitel .of. secti.cn 25-, " i it*"'lS=O o/'the Inchrctrtal Dtspt'fies Act' 1947' It'is also 4 case' .;]'. Pnge 7 oJ'20 .i ,.1 \ rr r . rl i rir_t fj .'I I . f , I ,, I i ,I l' l i , '.t | | ti a , r I il r ; '{ rii':'t - rll ,, r't I I ?", t, " r1i.,, 1-, -', ,t .l , irr i ; of unfair labaur prdctice' Aft" termination n'ty services' the I ; ' aqorisaia Management appointed new 2t!?: enxployee' Iry nry . plorn vthich is violcftion of the I'D' Act, 1947' 5, That the ternlination of services in the instclnt ccLie is turongfi,il, illegal, dgaiist the principles. of nah'tral justice, ruablfide orio casi of vtnclictiveness and also unfair labou" ; , , prctct;Qe, the ytorlcntan is, therefore, entitled to re-instatettteitt' , t,rtith'"all conseqttential benefits including .wages foy the. i ,'it'tierveningPeriod' It is, therefore, prayect that the Llon'ble Court be pleased to . poss an c^ivaril in clirecting th? Respondent/Management to re-i4state the ytorlcman in their services vvith ftill back wciges, ,,,, ,,,, 6tn6l with cor4inttity 'of services and with all benefits" ' l, , 'lZ, , Sfld Fllb$its that a perllsal of the dernand notice which'was armexed ', AS Apgqxllre-A t6 the Statemenl of claiur, also placed on recor{, shows that . ,:*i"-'- ., :., jgrisdiqtiott to go into the issue as t0 whether or not the. contracts entered .,,irpei#.,..,;.rrFr. , ittto ,bgtWpEti the petitioner and the seburity agencies were snam or a '. ::1r1r1.;i- .:'.ii--,:!.r, t ri+:- T--'" , . , ; -' .. ''. camo,ut1agq? since no sllch dispute was raisecl by th,e respondbnts; no -:r'i'ct{ ri'i'-1;1"1'r1r''! cte br ,na uo*opriate government in r:hat respect, and; .'i I , fefer'gnge WaS made by the appropriate governmenl .,,'tiit ,.,': ,, , irttrcre lwrri no pleaclings made to that eft-ect'by the respondent/claimants' ;i lllli t; f i, . Sfirplaqesreliance onthe decision of this Court inAskoktr{uinnru'a Qrs..i. l-,r ' ! I' rr' ' :'i'.,, ' i ' ,Thr bnfu & Anr, in W.P.(C.) Nos.9438-42/2004 deciclecl on 20.12.2006, ':,, ,l i no elispute hacl begn r:aisecl about the contract being sltam or a camoirflage. .i,i ' ' : ., rlri :' . lli,'. : ',. ; I , ,,;'i i :' 'l ; . ; r I . ,' , !. ,l , 't":l I i I, ,.,.-.. : ly,P,(e,).Nqs,J150.56/2007&otherconnectednt.(dters " Puge8of20 i '. .; -t r ,'l'he clainr cif tlre workmen was that they were \\ '' Jl , ,,: : r.l t I direct employ'ees of -ffi 5l of the. contractoi.. I the clicl not claim that they were empioyees \- ,: I'till 1s-notv settlecl, lavv tl'tat where the worlcmen claim' thtLt the .e onlf act beh,veeh principle entployer 1nc.l . conl'rctctor 7'vcts shaw ancl . camottflctge, they hcru.e to ratse an in&,1'sn"ial '; 't,6l.i,s1tprte to that ffict and tt ts indttstrial aditdical'or who, rt' ! o.:1i-er going throttgh the evtclence and the terms onql ilonrtntor,r-of the intri:tct ancl other iircttmstances hcts to cleci.cle vthether the confrctct betuveen lrincipal employer and tthe contra.ctor vvas sham and camottflage". { etnc( CaryottJlage, the Labotr Cotrt cdtrld not have et'ttered r i l tl, I1 para 7 of the judgrnent, flris Court further observed as follo'uvs:, '.'rll is obviotts that the yvorlcmen'in this case clicl n.ot raise' i Qoryeqt clisptfte and did not approach. l:he appropridte' ..i,' , ancl cctmoztJtog" or"'that the contract labortr sygtem should be cltrolirhrd, They got referrecl ct clispttte that they.vvere the ,' emPloYe l.oyees of the. management and vvere not ' being ' ., r\ :i.,'; ' -, . ' .. -,i l" ii . , , .i;., ,ii .!r-it'l! ! , I ii' I I rl ' lr i r . /( ' lt'. ,t . --j,tl ' ', : .';i;ri1'' ; i,'' ',i;,, ,'i" kcid no ttlternative brtl to dismiss the claint. It is settlecl lcnu r:;iii, ' I "1" t' , lhcd lhe Labortr Cotrt/Tribunals cannot travel beyond. 'the irtllt", I t,'-; | !.' I ! .j:,i, , 'l ";' I ' i'tu-,,*i o.f re.felrence If no referynle hacl been mTde to;t:he :;.,i; , .:' ,'' ' , ,;i lefms o.f-refe'rence If no reJerence had.been rixade t'o't'he ii; ,. r ', [,abOpi' Cottrt for determining vvhether the contract was. sham :.:' '." i'.' , r '. .7 ' !-- -r t^^:^r^s *l""thef the COntraCt WAS ShAWi ,.,,,;i1i1'".i*;'iri',*1 .. ': - i inl.Q' tl'lls tssue clnd decnea . ,:'r:l' . , ;;. ',, ,, A.nd cemoltflqgerr. -: .: rrl : ',,,i r,.'.l'.l:i''..t Ii'r : l1"il;ii:: .],. 'i:ftS, il.gar.upcl qonnsel forlthe petitioner has drawn the attention of the ''lii"i''" Cir;;t ij rf"'. w'iuen staterneirt filect by thg petitioner before,the CGIT, It is'' t;.iip:;1iitt"'" ;uir,.r.,lr,,La rhat irr itq wr-iten staternent, the petltioner had statecl that there' :i'ilii5'-1i''51r''i!"'riq':,lTti lfelaliorrihip of employer-employee between '!he pariLies, 'I'he' .. :i,' ,t 1 I 'i" 't' . t , ttill ,, ! 't I,t,,p.(C,) Not, 1150=56/2007 & otltet conrtectetl mallers , Pnge 9 of20 i. "-1"'t liii'ri'l'l _ ,.'.illtrr.,.r r ''1 ' r:i .ttri i .i ' ,;i ii'" ''',,'' ",' ':' ,- r----^-- r^^r -^i+L^.- L^^,^ o-^^-o.{ r . , rcsponcien[ workffran ha.d neither been engaged nor recruited by the I ,,.',. i'ti ',i '..,' li.'i pe[itiqner nlanagen]ent ard that the lespondeltb were not membe::s o .' iti" ":, l','. , .i,1, ,,,,;,,.,'sct,ViQg, No appoilltmenl letters have beeh iss'ed to them, nor were theit :; i' ,i I :', '; ' ,i"r' : ' ":*i,$,i;+r'{ij:lrb;',yire$ iterrmi'ated by thE petitioner manasement' Reference had also been,' " :irl;|i; i ,':r ji rr,i1a-cte fb lthe aforssaicl juclgment of the Division Bench iri the case of lksturav ' .':';1t,L ' l:,:' :",ri., ',srcuiity Services /.trl (supra). It was pleaded by the petitionar'that the t.it-rt' , scc;'riLy I p"rsor.rlel proviclecl by the security agencies are in' no v/ay "' .i:ryr\ii,iii;';i,il;rg(;lulggUgCl With llre recrqitment procedutie of the petitioner management"' '''"j'iil'ill ' t:' '.r.-" '. '' ,. ' " - ----., ^.lr+l^^ ,,-ro* +i.o.r.o.,-o ..,f i.he "i-r-rr.lnvrrren'l'., t.i:t1$l ;;lri. ;,irIl"re gn nsEt #ti#it,nr.qi{aclret',"tltsY.ar. e enployees of the agency under tire terms of the employment ' , ', r lsettlecl iielwqen the wor-lcmen and the age'.cy concerned. i AA t ','l ,^ ff \tl ..,' 16, I,g4nrecl collnsel for the pqtitioner has also refenecl to the affidavit ibr'*rr'ol'eviclence filecl by the petitioner firanagement of Sh. Netra Pal l',eP'al' workins I tManager' ,iSirre, AGM, I.,egal working in the offrce of the Genela. Aclniinistrative Complex, Faridabacl, wherein he hact statecl. th^at the worknren wel'e neithel employecl by the tlranagement npl i.rtere ,1"t , lcrminatccl/retrenched and that there was rlo ernployer-employee:.elationship between llig wollglan aird the manageinent. It was also affiilecl tha-t in I view of the jqElgment in l{eshav Security Services (supra), all the BSNL , qStabli$hnients engage the workrnAn fiom DGR sponsoied agelc)" olly. I li', , 'I,q4rlqcl coilnsel for the'petitioner has pleicecl.r'eliance onl the . ;, ,, ', , . :, flceisi<tn ol the ,supreme Courl it:- lndian prugs and Fhsrrn&ceililices.Xs [-td' "i ,i,iil;j: :' .:.. ,,it'i,)i?,lig' lyrtr.krulfta !nlian Drigs ancl .Pharma.euticals +ttL-, (?007) I scc , :..tt;i'';: j,i:,ij: ;1'lrr': ,r"i .':ii uti ' :,'i:lt-,i ,zr?iil:ilil'tib ,S,i,ribid" Cogrt after referring to the judgment of'the constitutiorl . ' i,r.';',:., . . . r"t,=t,tz ""i{:'. ' '. , 'tronsh in The Secretury, Stste of l{arnatakd & Other v' Wtrya,Du'.i *. .1':. .',,;1i;-*,.t':,,:...Qtltct'L,'(2006)4SCClhasobselvedthateconomicrealitiescanlotbeiost ,,- '.r1, fJ:"-! . I ri .r ., .r ,,1 . ? ' : 't}ll+r.il'.1,.,,{lr' :i' -',t:'t;i'i:,'.,.'. " l, : :i" ',1;J! i' . l '.!r'"ri;," I f",:' : 't , , I ,'] ; Tii,i; ;' ,: : 'r"1,1t,1t,((.i,) Ni:t. J l1"0=16/200t a ptltet' ponttecter! ntutter.s i .rtrge I O b1z() ' ':., , -.1tltl;nr .i,k,rdi; t\ : tri - ' .-.. " '' /,t . 1, 't I -ir.lfl .|., . '!', \ i i't,'. ;., ' i ,'t ;l-f ';t';i .', *,.', otll "No cloubr, Article 41 provides for th'e 'ight to'u'ork, tut'tlti, h,,,' - 'i''r t'tbr .., n ., ::. , b""n clcliberatoly kept by the founcling fathers of the constitr-rtion'in the 1 .' , ,(lircctive prineiplcs ancl l'renc. *u.l"unenforceable in vier'v of /'rr-icle 31 of- , ';:i':".,,.,1' I , ,' ' . ^,r . rr-^j----,:^l^,- .-on1in, . ' ! thp Conititutien, because the for-rnding fadrers.in their wisdom realized'that ,,.,i . i srhile il. wus their wish' that everyone should'be given employ:ment, 'Lhe . - ,r:-l . lt ,: ; t I r! mr -. .'------^-^^^ t ',1 , t ' I tl . , I gl,eL]llil iealitiq o[ ottr country did not pennit the same' The Supteile Cor-rrt 'i. t r:.' ,"i: ;l - , ,;" ' ' i , .i. , reiv9d, that Arlic le 2l of the Constitution canngt be stretghed sq far as to ''l;li I : 'QDf i '.. ;,o*un that everYone must be given a job' The number of available jobs is ' ";.',. , ii;j , ,ii. liniitecl b'cl 1rqnqe the Courls rnust talce a realistic view of the mattet and :'til i '.".1 : i'' , 'i r^ 'i,, :iri j , .: ni ust -oxe"l'eiSe sqlf restraint.' .qlgji,',',r:, i,;lii;'J'-'-= ',,'i'i- .' , .'i;,;:;'.. l. I i.; .;l ' ,,., ., ',lli,. rOn the othei hancl, Mr. Nandrajog, learned coursel fol the . r- ...;t,tj._. .r, I l' ., - , ,.t'- ., ':- ,,.., .. {r"otil)o'c[Q'[ work.man ]ras snbmitlecl that in the ptesenl case, the petitioner' .. ..-. -,:,,hacl ihitecl to lead any eviclence before the CGIT to edtablish that the .:.rii,:ii:li,rrir.,..rr \ryOrr,firern,lrad bqeu engage{ through tire iont'actors. They did'ot p'oduce., . , flrr{.d'r: ji 'i '. -l gii4iJ,,;i,.,,1lany^ClOeu[igntrQr other evidence io show that there were s]ry stttr4ctS-, t'- )';" ' ! ' '.1-^ --^r.:+i^.^^.1 ^-,1 r.l^a ^nh1.-o^i'nr-o/oanrrtii",, oocr'tnies:. I I /,v -Ol ..: 'F0>2. '1.*,Url.. .! ,i$t$ll it-" : .,enlerq4 into betWeen the petitioner: anci the contractors/secur:it)4 agencies; i i ' "" " , ,r't ',-. -,^ ^tr.r-^ c^^:t:+';^^ ^.F that the seculity agencies hacl, in turn, postecl the workman at the facilities of :,., ,llrq potitionet'; tliat.the salaries 1.f the workrnan har4e been paid by' the :'. . ,, gontr4gtors aucl not by the petitionel clirectly. It was not eveil clisclosed as to I whioh o['the worlcman hacl been cleployed through which of thg.cgntractorS. i.: 1 ,.Apart li,onr lilirig the afficlavit by way of' evidence, as aforesaicl, ' no i '4oc.r'dntary eviclence was placecl on recorcl by the petitioner tnanagement. . t I [o sr-rbmits tliat the case of the fesponclent .workinan was thai they ivcre clir:eet appqintees/employees of the BSNL' lo' t a? for the respondent s'bmits that the temancl letters !l ,1ii,'1t,((),) Nol, J !50,".56/2()()T & pthet connectetl tltilttets t. .Plge II of20 \ ing dedvtcted fronx mY !'he q.ntotrnt tovvards ESI and PF were ' being .: ; , : ,t. I ',,hLAnk pCipers,.blanpvotrchers andblanlcvotrchers". 20, I'Ie sr-rbmits that in theil written statembnt, the tnanagetlent dici not 'i *.."' ' , '', ,r ,.r-.-^..,..t^ 'r't^^ ^^;.1 ,.^oit'inrl \x/qe.rrnt e.l ahorated Ci;Cn in tlfeif i " rlr 'I'lie said Dosition was.not elabolated ci;cn in their ,t ,: I, ' \rycrc glgj:loyccl thror"rgh' 'l'he said pos :'i it t. , : lj,: , i:'ut-ticlavii.bywayofevidence' .\.:; , rli,'; l' , I 'I '- I l ,:. i: : I ?1, L,eil.ned counsel for the respondent has also refelred to the cross li,I 'l ','*nun inatign e,f thc management witness, Sh. Netrapal Singh qgnclr-rctecl on . : -.,, : I I "; , .. .:07,0ti,20b6, 'flre management witness hacl stated that they had nct filed any' ,..:07,0t].2006;'I.t.lemanagemeruwILIIcSs-IIZILLliLztLELtLlIcLLurvJIILLL!IIvL^l ,,"1 - ' " . l', , :i t,Baetci otl-ref than the written staternent and affidavit. LeSrlgd cottnsel li .,4{;}+ry;r,'*liit*nrL[:niiUl-iUlral thg work of security gua'ds is of a perennial natr-rre Thq :ii:-lii:, {ol' li" . . i ',,+]!.'Jttl.i,.ir,.' | ' I '.' ,, .. ' .liri' ',:.l'::.netitione; rcc'lgirgo secr-rrity guarcls at aIl its installation, The petitioner had ;i ;: :'l'w:+' ' r l' . not clisgloseel as to what is the lecluisite qr-ralification uncler the repiuitment rI--- ir ^^---^r'1^'^ ' t rules tbl tlic posts of security guarcls. Cons.equently, it cannot'be said that "j.t i, :' fUleS 1'01" tnc pOStS Ol, s€uLtlrLy bLr(arLrD' \{vrro-vLILrvLLwLJ ) ^e , tlt . .tl?,1i.;*?i#11,;;ir.rihg flBppintlngrlt gf tlie reppondcnt worlqnan was illegal or irregr-rlar' J,J.r. ,i':' r,J'li-',i.. "- '*t'ii|'&rlr''rrllrrlrn'vorfrr'i"''| rr''t '1-' "r ' ' ', ar-d learnecl cor-insel for the parlies, perusecl tha ir,tptgn"J .il . ' .' , , 22, l"laving l'Ieal'o learnecr uuLlltstrI l(rl Lr.rL/ ParLrvu, r'^.".".---...--,.i;---. ', ' r{ i -r.l--,^^-*'.^^ ''i"' I .,,i]' . I ; i a*ar,l eis wEll as tlie reporcl relied -*pon by the pafties, 'constclerecl the varlolrs elecisiens qiLpcl before me ancl trre respective qr-rbmis.sicins of the paities,'I gri s!l.tnc view that the iinpugned awaid czurnot be snstained, ancl is liabie to be lY,f,C,) Nos, 3110-56/2007 & other c9nnected rtttdte''s Puge I2 of 20 . ,i* r*: t '., . rl' "ar,' .{ , _ t- , ;lr-" , - - '':i t,' I '' I l il l.,uut a1'eaily set out herein above the ie'rns of re :,i;;5;;il; t i-il;ip-e-SI';!,, 'y'[e saicl terprs of leference, which.we]:e made at the instani'e:of 1-titi;r1''ul''" ''i1.,*'*oit.|,.'"ri clo not gontain any refelence for examination of the isdile'. ,.i "*ffry1firtiflrii)rftrfii$itfie'lddiitraqts between the petitioner ancl the security agencies were'u' . ' l'-,,' l!1.,*.,,,. c^t---^ ^ ^f -^.lt^..^,^. 1:-:lFilf:i1lglirt'r.0t'ri'bar1renflage, Ou the contrary, the terms of reference therrsel.ves- ''' ' i, ', ,r i ----l-, -^^..-:+. . ,.i;- ,. ;eli$glOse, [lrAt tlfc wor-ki1en' were ernployed thiough'secnrity .contractols ,,,,'1, i; ,, . , ,;inArtrely,,M1s, LUXrnan Secnrity Agency, M/s I(eshav Security Sc"rvices, lWs' '' - '1,,,::tii :'-:l I ''l '; : : i .- tr-- ..^--,.:^^^ yy^r +.r^^ ^^-^ ^./' r.l.o "-oo-^-rlarr.l.rxr, i:, 'i. il6at tlie.coptr"acts betweel the petitionel and the aforesaid secr-r::ity agency wet.e a $5anr or a camouflage, they would have..sought a specific i'eference in , t.liq! rqspga( ancl, if not made, they wor-rld haye eithel sought amentlmeht of iii,.*rq[et.ence.astnade,orassaiIecltlreSaIne.I-Iowever.,nosuc1tsteps'inthis, 'egarel were takgn, Even in their statement of claim, the l'esfondent wor.knrari clid lot raise any'issue to assail the contracts entercd j.nto betvvecn l,..o*'itiqn'etanclthcsecurrityagctrcies. in the notice.s of clemand - which are also 1-ilole or l6ss respect of all the worlcmen, the woricrnel had'stated in : -:' t, Pnge 13 of20 /: n lr i' terence tnade to ' ' i -cl pntieally wot'cled in I Ptll'fl 4l . r{ },- . : ,l:'i ., - j lr, 't a . *' 'i " I f :, '. . t r' .i It :i, ' i 'f 't. i !, I ' 'r . t,.i ' , ,r . ii i ir '- rl !' ' .1 I ..'{iifir';; '' n! t,ac;it,i,1y is utrong, ittegal.'activity, vindtctive, LtniLBt labot'u"' ,i.i ',t. n' ',(lctlVl,ly lS lyfong, lllegAl AcilVtty, vtnulcttve, UrULL;-L Lu.uuLLt i' ji, ,, i .: ,praeti.ce and anti labotr policy and side by side you have i,i,,' ''l i : -openly violated Sectton 25N and 25F of I.D. Act, 1947. As :i.j.-r)',ch,Ianxent:itlecltoreinStatementtnInyServicealon,guith tj ' i,i':i,,,, i .. : ,prq.eti.ce,and anti laborr policy and side by side ': ,', L r i ^ y'r1 . ',,.':,,.1, , ' fytl sala.ry of my past and contintrot'ts and brealc up.se'rvibe, . ,ill;ir .', ir r: , . 'yvil:h othei:r benefits". (Ernphasis supplied) ''iii'$'ill,,r,l l,',tr.q'i.' 'i' :" '-..' ;". -r ,,1 .: :, ' :liil l, ,: f,i,l: \,i,.t!.fc,,l f rr, tr 15ft1J6/2007 & ttther connectert ttrutters :";." r-.F,i.::1, lri!lirrr,'.n 'r":, ' ,, -r" i' :,i{l$;:i:::l"iliii:i i,'.r,',, 1.i';i;1i' 1,,,' :;.','' ,""'' : I , ':t ' , . ' .' .,2'5, 'l herqfgre, the case of the respondent workrngn was thai'they were .,,. r: . ,, .l+;iriii,,i jiil;+eneageeli lhl:augh"security agencies. since no such dispr'rte was raisecl or . : 'r'i'. :', .4'il ' ', I ",;;;lii.. j'.. 1,,i1'qlbrrq4] tl-rq QQgasion for the petitionel to either plead oI.plo\re" that the r lr i:i ; , '. ,' ^r. ^L^,- ^"sl ^-o .{ir{ -nt ar-e i,,"r.j laantfaqt$ 1ye,fg not shar.n or carrouflage did not arise. The failr-g'e,of the ,,i,,giiiu..-.." ,.,.petitiangt' [p plqdqqe the qontracts and the other: information in::elatio:r'to.' '11'''i " .' ;i' *,riryi,.i.iri.;istlrese.aoptraat$ gaulei not have led to the conclusion that the contra-cts did not;. ""'' ,i , ' -l^^,^^ ^,- ^^,-^,,f.1 . . ;,rtiiiti6,;**; . ; 9.X lst, Qt ,they wele Sham of .camouflage' The fact that they wele not Sham or ..,i..,' '';ii,":: : , 'l i' :l -' ', 'li'' "' '' ,t ,,,or]ghqcJ thi$ Cor-rrt to assail the terrnination of their cbnti'act by the i i,i ': '" , ','i$l?l uLtl L LU ctDDclrr LrrL' Lur'uuuclLrvrr v' -' ' il' .':lpetitianer and the impositign gf the conclition.that only DGR spbnsorecl . ,l''' {,' I ::ii'i' :, ,iAgeuciqs cbr-rld be engagecl for providing security services' It is also ,l . luotcworthy that the ietitioner is a goveiliment corporation. The provision of '': ,.,lii , .sequr-ity services involves appointment of responsible and credible persons, , iil, ,' : i ,ri,-rrr.ir t-ru, an qlernent of trr-ist a'cl faith. sec*rity services.are availecl of,bv ,,i;','" 'ti.: .,-,,1:, lthq petitioner-to safeguald its assets and properlies.. For sr-tch e:agageilent, ' .- I : ,: .'Lt..rc petiii.orrqr was contracting with security agencies who'werc providing , i'lt..., -r .. , ,, r : pcrsonrl-cl at their responsibility. 'lhe petitioner, obvio.r-rsly, bor-rld not havs' lii i',' , ;;;;;;J.casual *orto"r, o,' i*di'icl'al basis for pqrpose-or provicling i'..ir'l'r,: .11,.:.': I li : . -.' ,. " il" ' I ' sBsuril"y'selviges, :' f :i|!.| . ii ' , ,' - -,^ .,-e.lier-rn the fn of the rnanagement .','ii,,l...,"..26,.lu1ayal.sorefierto.thecIoSSexarninatir :, +t .i r- :: .. t,..-.* il4ll rl '. r,'i,;^t''' 'i; , : ' I : mrye 1.,t aTZt) ,i . i,.i. ,'" *rr I r .ll

¶11. .'i ..1 ,.;;l , : ''Llie ,lors" ot'the petitioner as it clearly shows that the case'of tlrc,r'espondent :,:.ll ,i rf ,:,,i i | .1arq;ftr1iatr also was that they were engaged by the petitioner.'thror-rgh '.:''''. , 0ol.trracters. In r'espoilse ;to one qllestioni the answer giiien' by'the. .;,.., : rllzlnagglnent witness is: i'l am' .not avvare vvhether the vvorlc done by the ..,i1 : Qontrctctor hqve been accontpiltshecl by the vvorlcmdn in this case(s) or n'o't". :':r'1.:j.; I. ' I rer qllery, the answer given by the witnessl is: '.'/z' ls ;1 ""t .,,. ... .r:.: tllt reiipense to. another qllery, the a i'!.:,. I I r"-' ,tt ' l, itlcoffecl to $Ltggest that there ,J' arry tripartite agreement betuveen' the . f. ' :. 1 ',:' i, tnanclgemenl., contrctctor and the vvorker". The witness fuilher states "I do'' ' .: tlot la,rottt tvhether these yvorlffixa.n have vvorlced v'Inder the aforesaid ,!.' .,, , i., -,. : , r aQnlr€la{oft Q7 \q{t, ' . t " ' ,t1 , ' 27 , ' . ,'t'!r[ afplesaicl angwers clear'ly suggest thal the . stanct of the . -'' l.citpopclent worlqrran was that there were icontractols engaged'by. the. . .j ,. i . r:ctitionir, ancl the worlanen hacl performed the, contracts by rendeiing their '':'.1'., .i$etVree$ U1gtgllnder. It is also perlinent to note that in the erltile cross ,,l ' '.laniination of the lnanagement witness, not a single sliggestion has been given to the witness that the contracts between the petitioner and the seculity' . ,,, :,"$h$ril:"1t'.i.i;':;i n5,..' e i gb' Wbf g ShAur or c amoLlfl age. . ; ,, ', 'rt)Y ,... ,].rt ;]; Since no rel:erence wai macle by the appr:opdate govelnlnent on the iS$ftQ ql'thQ Valictity of the contracts between the petitioner and.the security ; , : .1 .r1 lagEngiq-b, the eGI'Jl hacl no jurisdiction to examine the saffIe' ;.'!he decision -ii .i^ Asholc lduruar (supla) is clearly applicable in the facts of the ptesent case. .l'hc apllroaeh of the CGIT, in the light of the aforesaid .disct-tssion, in ie e'nnlr-ae'fs hetw r and the secr-riity'agencies cleclaring lhat the contl-acts between the petitione 'wqrg A ,shAm oI a qamollflage is cornpletely erroneolls, The said'issue did . .;, ,t :. Ht,l,,(t:,) .Not, J 15b56/2007 & olher connected ttrallers Pilse I 5 of20 (I, I '' ','i ' 'i ,-nr-^ ..^.- .n1:* , . not at'isg fol censicleration of the'CGIT. The non filing of docr-rments or any .. ''ilr*i: :l '-'t"I 'I ,l r: ,, I e\ricf ence !r-1 tlris tespect by the petitioner was clearly on accollnt of the fact ''qf lfi ;, itf{ :1't'l? tu:t'lr:; :' ttFl'x''';;;v.11 rrlr1 *1 r - i,rrri.,,r ,'-r,,. .tna'lilr;bailfilirrJwas not qven raised by the respondents. On the contrary, - '. , tr-iir., li r . ,t" '' ";-tl1i;1iil;ri'lu"'iri..ruv lraa r"rr"itted the position, ancl .it was their own case that they had been "tl : ; 1; ' . -'' .ie,,getg"ei throttgh contractors t, I . .r. ZL), Tt is also interesting to note that on the one hand, the CGiT has held . ,.''il;,, .' .i.:rl rr.? qettlraats to be sltam. anci cainouflage, whiie on the other lrand, r'vhile , .,.1 !'ti ;l , ,ltl ll' '------o ' ' ,'il' , ' ''' ll"ns,,,y.r.irrg thb reference it has been helcl that tirc action of the'petitioirer 'il .,. i : tltutnageqent in tenlinating/disengaging the services of the v5roli<man . : Ir r..;,..., ,-tvithottl crxnplying yvith the provisions of ID Act, '1947 ancl non. cortferring.' ,,, o7 tem.ltoraryt status on thetn in acc.ordance vvith the DOPTS Schenxq of I , , Septen,tber I g93 ancl .thereby non ,regulariz:ing their services ite ternas af f- . /t^t /1f. ,,i, , , .i provislons q.f'Cd" Qt&A) 'Act, 1970, employed.through Secwrity"Contractors ii-, i .l i :,.: ..; . 'l viz.. M/S l,rlxwtrn Secur:ity .A'gency, M/s nkshsv Secwri'ty ' Seitvices' M/s ', ' ': : . Ar**sdho Sectyity Sertices'. is neither jilst nor fair vlQr {egaL 'Tltb ,' i ., illa.ncrgetn.enl .is directbd to reinstate all the above natnec vvorlcnten' " .t;i'ii, t. L' ,1, , ,, ,.--^^-^r crtot^,.; Itr^t^^^t^ /ff' {".tlroch /lD i\ln 5f. , ,.lli:f 1.,. :, cft?pliqctill,l e.vc;epl S/Shit lulahesh (ID N'o'5i/2004), Mttlcesh QD No 56/2004) 'i' iit :, ' ,o;O Shr.i tlm(tr Singh (D No.g0/2004) becattse these three wot'kmen horu , ,'i,i,-",..,, not .filect their ffictavits along tl'tih S0% baclc wages w'e'f' 0l'09'2002 cind '" l"iifi' i "l r''i"' ,l6e pqltltlent of the enttre an.ears .yvithin ttvo months f"om the clate of ,,',j,,i.:., .. ,tlri'.,',fl'ln , t= o ' r/1" .,; :!::.r ' , :' ' i ' I. pttblicaiion o:'tl'te q\ucu'cl', (Emphasis sLrpptiecl) , .i I . .';.', ii l' : ,.,.,i,i,, l.,ibO, Irrlq,,I the afores4icl, it'wo'lcl be seen that t6'e CGIT has itself '; ;ill"''''' ''''li'' 'j-;br.Veii tliit tlrese'workrnen. vvere ernployed through secur:ity contractors, . : !l!/i\rr Y vLl lrrLls 'i iflr'lr.i' I,' ' riiinrely'M/s, Lrlxnan Seculity Agency, M/s l(eshav Secui-ity Services,'IM/s' . i r,:. '. l,-ii',1 ,i ,:,..i:....i.:. : Anurraellra Security Services. Tlre qrrestion of invoking tlre pi.oyisions of ' - .',,':i . . ..,'' j --, rl' I ; i " . il': .i.'','r .tl ::;ll ."'i. \ 'tr:'ti,:,r:.'t.',t i 'i -.-^^no^rt...-^^,-..^atorrtaqrrro,c pttgel6'of20 ' l: '.lil.l, ;. ,i .' : ': l(,P,(c',) No,r, J li.0-56/2007 & olLer connected matters '{'1;tlt1" .,i il it !. .'i ii'l"l - '-' ,' ,nifli|,l' 1i ll' ' r!:i,i i'i t.' , r'l .,rQ 'L I ,,igi'RA 4g1 lvortld arise oply if the services of the workgren \^/el:e talceq :lhr.Orrglf labqfrf centractofs. The afolesaicl cleclalatibn by the CGIT has ' ',7"n1,. : clir.ectly engagQd by the petitioner.management, nor'was it so establishe4 by ' r1 the,Iggglcl, PEfiinently, they had not proclucecl an),' lettgrs of { 11'tl, .i't['*' t '. i l;;*l,ljitili'' i.uurroit-*i*elrl issuecl by thp petitioner appointing them as security guards' As iafor,esaicl, lhq,petitioner is a goveffIrlent cbrporation and it is absoluteiy :rnooa'ptable arrcl unbelievable that persons to such vital irositicns - which ,iivolve tr.{st ancl faith, Woulcl be appoinled casually without even issuance. .t:- ' ,: , o['aPPoiutment letters' ";',i rl . ,li:;r :. 31. A 1:erqsal of the impugnecl award shows that'the jialrlc prirnariiy . ! . :r rr , - r'- : ceecls on the basis that the contracts between the petitionel an{ th9 ,. i '. lll'o = :." . r security agencies are sharn ancl camouflage. As afoiesaid, thid finclirig h?s" 't , -. : 'i . .trc(l' renclerbcl without juriscliction. The CGIT was also swayeci By 'the. fact ' ',. ,:- :-"^^rrrtenl ; able to establish that thei, hacl bpen "' , ' . that the t'espondent worlcmen wbre able to establi .',,i , t , ..,,, t working at tlre piemises of the petitionel for a couple of years atleast' 1.1-rat' { "i li ' "t^^'P Yr: -r:: r r -:^-- ! ,rr:l,i; 1,, .by it-selfl coulcl not have leacl to the conclusion that the'relatio'ship of : ;i'1 '';.'. i ' ' !i .,' petitiongr cloes not even, dispute the fact that the respondcpl wollanel I '':':;'"-' '' t'tt,:*:;f; |i.,]" *"tuo"', "on *et'^ the 'u'" of the ,,.t,f't;r;:,i :!l i ,r ,.. .i,i,,, ::r;;:r,i'r r \y,-el;e ppplilig; ilie petitiqnel at its facilities'' How .i.,;; .:":' ,r-,it'r,i;-, ir tnu they were ,serving thro'gh contractorl,' i,e' secr'rrity I i lf,f ,(Q,) Nttt, J !50'5 '612007 $ other connectert ntutters ,i Plge I7 ttf 2D .. -ffi (o .i'.agencies, Repdei'ing of .such contract it , ..'., : rqgponclcltts the wolkmen of the petitioner' :^, labour wor-rid nPt malce . the t . . : 32 'l'6e sitgation may be viewbci fiom another angle. fhe award itself .,..:,i,i.r.. , .icroptairis tlie clates on which these rdsponclenl workrnen had peerr engaged' 't ',. i.' i' -.t,tr.s -saicl tabrllation shows that the ealliest engagements wel'9'made on' ' ,i" :l i j';;r;'irrl^-, E"r;";"*, *.r. rnacid eacrr ,r* ,n"reafter rigrrt upto the .lyll --o--------- .-ti I '.lli r -' ,."iii, i ili, .'..:r,yt)af' 20p0, Acgolding to the'respondents, they were. al1 disengaged on ..iiiil:,'r','i'1'o't';o9,iOuZ, Iiven if rhe submission of the responclents: that they were : ' r-l-^ ^^^ r" -l . .,, , , direqtty engaged by the petitioner as casual wor-kels were to be'acceptecl - ,,, l;', i . ::.it-,. r;'.,.;'er,.ths SAIC9 pf Srgtiment, theii'engagements rangecl between 8 years to 2 ,i1:5t;;' 'i,i:i,;t;-rri tiv.n ifttrey are treared as casnat worlcers of the prtitionei, sirice their . ; . '' "] 'J r | - l^ :----^-,-I r,-^.r-I" l.l.a trrnr 'T:., i,,, ,., rappolnlnients wqre macle irregularly and not t)lough the pr:ocess of ::.' .' . t'9p.1' .' r'Q'c.i't-titr-rt cnl bY IpUblic adveftisctnent, they.woulcl not have a light to tfre post. ',,-",,,. '..'.,.'. CO'sequeptly, in ally event, the direction to leinstate the respondents was" jii|t;Tiiil:i;.|';i:nQtpaI!eeli'grandcannotbesustained. ' :{..:i,. i, I : ''*i$lirii.i;m-i*,i,{.1,.-i.,'; r.,..,,,. ' ,. .- ..,.- :--,-,-- ,,,i.i , ,. ilrS',- ' ' 'i'iija,y refer to the juclgrnent of the Supleme Court in.[rtgbir Singlt e'li _ t'i;iJ - ; J u ,i i SCC 3?7, wher:ein the Supreme Court has noted the shift in law;.pdrlicularly : tt,r:. l, aasc eI casual workers ancl thosg who are not regularly employed, it has !' |" ,l beerr liElcf that the relief of rcinstaternent does not automatically follow the .ri ,, t-ineling iliat the tqrminatiori it ill.gul 4nd in breach of section 25F of the Act' ,'l'he awatd of compensation has been held to be sufficient to meet the ends ofjurstieo. I may cmphasipe here itsell'thatJhe respondents coulcl not be s'aid to be tlie casual ernployees/wodcff.ta[ of the petitionel ancl the hb6ve .: :lqegofll[gnOsggeqgivenonlyasanadclitionalreasoning' .l' 't' I 'ly,P,(C,) Nps' J 150-56/21)07 & othet connected ntatte$ Puge 18.of 20 ,1 : ir..r t. .r I i r i-, !i i .t Li r . :. t -l ,3t1., I,etrrned.'.counsel for the petitioner points ottt that the l:espofldent wdll(mpl havq bcel receiving wages ttnder seciiol 178 of the Act' fhe . ,,.,,i " , t ' ^,r r r -r ---- .,. '',it,e--ollrl h!]S Oit:eqfecl p3yment of the last drawn wages or the minimutn wages' :i,,.'. .t-' l,l : wSishcver is higher.' The sarle has been paicl fr-orn the date of the a\'vard : '..' ' :, ,--..----:^-, ^ AA 111ArrA qnA re.s to benaicl even now. These ,'n\l/^l"cls t,g, 04. I2.2006.ancl the same continUes.to bepaid evt 'r ' aortrr hccn nei.l fl It is submittecl that each of ' ' eady been paicl for over six years' \^/Ages llave all ." thp re.iponclgnts have received wages ttnder section 178 of the 'r\ct tp the 'fllne,ef oVeI Rs,i lacs (on the basis of the l'eviseci minimum wag-e5'from time ' .:.. lo tinrE, as tlrpy wefe higher than the last clrawn wages) except in lespect of lhc leslronclenrs in w.p.(c.) Nos.3 r52l20dn, 315312007, 3'15412007, . 3 | 56120Q7 , 31.5912007 , 316012007 , 359612007 and 3650 12007" ,'vhere. the , applicertiorrs uncler section I7B are still pending consider:ation' 'Ihese apj:f igeitions are being dealt with separately. .rlr '.1- -: ..- ,rj). r:[e resporloenm, as aforesaid, have received wages unclel' section - ' t i.' .",r.,, ,l I 7Il irr exqass of lLs,3 laqi after their-termination: I may obscrve that ihdr-rgh rlt.l . . while allowing tlie applications of the worlqnan undet section i7I] of the '.,,,,i,;,,,, ii,.;;;;.(\etr. yiq?.:gnir.tien older clated 13'10'2011' the Courl had'reqr'rirpd the '.':lr-lrJt t.,ifl i.,; - 'ir : r r r '',.,i;{r,'iii :l:,'.1;i: liVOt!<rtrAn tp glvg an unclert4king to the Qourl tliat in case the wlit petition :;.ii'i'i r'q l' \ l.i,J-,!. ,'i' . ,. r ., i $uQgee4p, !.hey shall .r'efunci the diffelence between the amQunt bi' last drawu ': , .''. wulgqs ancl the rninimurn wages" The respondents have been',receiving Ill' .. | . -* -^--^..^r^*+.ri-^,- .r.' i:l ., \^/aget uhder seqlion I7B attlie minimun waBes.rates prevalent ti"orn time to 1i1'ffi;1fi:li.-;i,g;llii'.j,,i.,".',.1 ' : ---,.,^^.^.r.L^ r^-* A,-arrrh \rra.rae rlrcrxrn lrv thern 'l-he : , - i,iJ,i,rl I ,,,linre,'#t\intt.it [igher than the iast d'awn wages clrawn by them' The effect +41l;iq*r,,i,,*'ii.,i:i' "ri!. ,"r ,.ir .-----,-- 1-., .,. .rr i, ,. .,.,..,, ; . lol, tlrp awar4 belng set asicle woulcl be that ih"y wouid be i'eqr-lited to reflind , ,!-'. ,- ,,',-l-".' '' " ; 1 , i ,- 'i,; ,, ; ;. lfhe saiel:ilifl-Uru,'tnu, I-Iowever, I *n not inclinlcl to dirgct the'same' and the ' ' , , , ] t, i*u,,t spplt,.*t aol]ld well be treated as acleqttate compensation payable to thern' ,i; '.! , , , ,,i 'il \ . ?,Jr' ! t .'! '\ , I ll,.tt,(c,) N[s,3150.56/2007 & ottter co,rtrecte,tr,ltuile$ .' I'uge 19 rtJ'20 ' It i.l li, i. t \ .VT {'".6). : i. ' r I ' tl '' - n '' il j : 'i,] il.': i'"i i'" , ,'l''"1 : l. I ,l ,.'i'", l ''! i iit+r r, 'i' ,i,:i:.,, ..':,t1 ' .il ','. .^:a___^- .., ,_,_1 I 'tr i 'l;ii , .i'., i iU lieu'of ipiustajerpent and baclc wages, even if it were to be accepted fbr ,l',.:lf l i. r'1'l'l u,. ; _ ;''i:lj;:.':' i.'"- the gake gf 4fgr".1lRerrt that they were the casual worlcman of the petitioner'. .jtt!il.Jj.''.', ;..{'r l. i ''lf1"l'ii,:.' :i ' ' I-Iowq{er, ir.r respgci of worlcmen who are founcl not entitlecl to r'vages under '':;Fii '.t:'r. !,i,SrnUn,l 1i=Bof the Act, no compensation is payible as they, in any event, i;;:ltiit: l,:"1; ]ut" ,,'rn, ivp.rliuisn of the petitioner and, consequentlv' no case of ; 'r;l:i"'"t, i i ,:.irdnld*'eiit is macle out by them against the petitioner' I i' ff:''l${;""i'i-"' .i. ''. , I tions are allowed and tiii.;.:|,:.'1...:' , ,36.. , I Acpordlngly, the writ petil , ;.i.,{i :i iil,.liri1,,f :'" ' I j , r-_ ,. .., thqir rQsPec-tive gosts' l.t' '. I :\'t Ail the pqndirrg applications stand clisposed of' t 'Jl: Ji ,: 'l .t ' r' I . ," . MAX{qI{ 20, 7oL3 ".1 ,$r ,. th.. impr-rgried .. pArties to.bear . .l vxP[}I S'rrNcm,.l, ..: :>,.-. )n ^f )lt t LLSo 'v"vJ -v t. ! i, i '":.it, '"

qv $-70 *INTHEHIGHCOURToFDELHIATNEwDELHI w.P.(c) 36s0t2007 BHARAT SANCHARNIGAM LTD ""' Petitioner Through: Mr. Raj Birbal, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Raavi Birbal, Advocate VETSUS BHARAT SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vikram Nandrajog, Advocate with Mr. Bijender Singh, Advocate t :t"ffif' MR. rusrICE vIPrN .ANGHT