JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE Chairman and Managing Director of Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , Ramagundam Division, Godavari Khani, Karimnagar District, is the appellant in all these writ appeals and they are filed against a common order of the learned single Judge passed in a batch of writ petitions.

( 2 ) THE question that arises for consideration is whether the Singarenicollieries Co. Ltd , hereinafter referred to as "the Company", is bound under law to absorb all the contract labour as badtli Fillers . The contract labour filed several writ petitions and it was contended before the learned single Judge that the contract labour who were working as Hamalies in the Company for over five years and were given training in loading the stored material, should be absorbed as Badili Fillers, on regular basis, under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, without insisting on their names being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petitions and the decision of the learned single judge is questioned in these writ appeals.

( 3 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-Companythat all the contract labour were working under a contractor without being sponsored by the Employment Exchange, that the contractor pays daily wages to the labour, that the Company has no supervisory control over them and that it is open to the contractor to use the labour in other works and in other establishments also. Even otherwise, the Company cannot appoint anybody unless sponsored by the Employment Exchange and there is a direction that the Company should appoint only those persons sponsored by the Employment Exchange, as Badili Fillers.

( 4 ) ON the other hand it is contended by the learned counsel for therespondents, viz. , the contract labour, that the Badili Fillers and the contract labour do the same type of work, except that the Badili Fillers work in the mines whereas the contract labour work on the surface, and that the Company need not appoint only those persons sponsored by the Employment exchange. It is further submitted that the Company is the employer of the contract labour and the contractor is only a middleman. It is-also submitted that these labourers come under the definition of "employees" and that there is master and servant relationship and after the coming into force of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", these contract labour become regular employees. It is further submitted that In the view of the judgment of the Supreme court in Union of India vs. N. Hargopa 1 it is no more obligatory on the part of the Compony to appoint only those persons sponsored by the Employment exchange.

( 5 ) BEFORE we proceed to consider the relevant provisions of law andthe decisions cited, we shall refer to the avernments in the affidavit, and the counter-affidavit. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners it is stated that all the writ-petitioners are contract labour working as Hamalif "muccaddams" in the area stores of the Company and the nature of work is to load and unload store materials like explosives, cement, timber, iron, etc. , and all the petitioners were given training by the respondent-Company for certain period and though the petitioners are working under the contractors to undertake the works of the Company, they are governed by the A. P. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules, 1971 and they are all treated by the company on par with the regular employees. But the only difference is that the petitioners are paid daily wages. It is further averred that the contract labour are also issued service certificates and that in the year 1979 some of the contract labour were appointed in the posts of Badili Fillers. But strangely the Company refused to absorb them on the ground that their names were not sponsored by the Employment Exchange, which act is illegal and discriminatory.

( 6 ) I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document