IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that contract labour cannot claim regularization without establishing an employer-employee relationship and supporting documentation.

ORDER :

HARINATH. N, J.

The petitioners are seeking a declaration of the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 in absorbing the petitioners as illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners 1 to 3 are not pressing the writ petition. The petitioners 4 and 5 are pursuing the writ petition.

2. The 4th petitioner was working as Office Attender since the 5th year 1999 and the petitioner was working as an Attender since the year 1994. The petitioners were informed not to attend duties from July, 1999 on the pretext that there is no work available for the petitioners. The petitioners were engaged on temporary basis.

3. The petitioners approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour who had convened a joint meeting and admonished the respondents for having directing the petitioners not to attend duties without following the due process of law. The respondents thereafter reengaged the petitioners from 13.08.1999.

4. The workmen formed a trade union and registered it as Gas Authority of India Contract Employees Union, Rajahmundry. The Union raised several demands and settlement was reached with the intervention of Assistant Commissioner on 15.03.2000. The Cooperative Society was agreed to introduce and 4th respondent was formed. The Job contract was awarded to the 4th respondent and the petitioners were continued as Contract Labour through the 4th respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the payment of salaries and entrustment of work is by the 3rd respondent. As such, the 4th respondent is only set up to evade regularizing the petitioners and ultimately the petitioners were asked not come duty from 20.10.2004 onwards. Such illegal action is challenged in the present writ petition.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners are contract labour deployed by the 4th respondent/contractor. The contract labour cannot seek a direction for regularization with the principle employer. It is also submitted that the 3rd respondent being a public sector undertaking has its own procedure for recruitment for employees. It is also submitted that the petitioners were engaged by the 4th respondent subject to availability of work and that there is no employer and employee relationship between the petitioners and 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent also filed a counter reiterating that there is no direct employer and employee relation amongst the petitioners and the respondents 1 to 3. It is also submitted that they are deployed through the 4th respondent to work wherever there is a need of such manpower. The petitioners claim for regularization on the basis of the memorandum of settlement dated 15.03.2000 between the management of the respondents 1 to 3 and the employees union.

7. As seen from the said memorandum of settlement there is no annexure as to who are the members of the union as on that date i.e., 15.03.2000. There is a specific mention at Clause 8.8.3 that such workmen who are not providing services presently are not deemed to be the members of society and will have no claim in respect of the provisions of the settlement. It is not known as to whether the petitioners were working as on the date of settlement. The statement showing the contract technicians dated 20.10.1999 and the annexure is neither attested nor an authentic copy is filed. Thus, this Court is not inclined to rely on the said document. The respondents have specifically denied that the petitioners were engaged by the respondents 1 to 3 at any point of time. There is also no document which is placed on record to substantiate the averment that the respondents 1 to 3 were paying salaries to the petitioners. The petitioners have filed a reply to the counter, however, have brought in the certificate issued by the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) and Competent Authority, the same would not come to the aid of the petitioners.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the settlement dated 02.09.20