( 1 ) THE Food Corporation of India Loading and Unloading Workers Union (in short the Union) representing the workmen employed by Respondent-2, Labour Contractor of Respondent-1/food corporation of India (in short the Corporation) in retrenching 450 workmen who have been working continuously and rendering services to the Corporation for several years in its various godowns and Railheads in Bangalore District as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and discriminatory being opposed to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and Article 14 of the Constitution and for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Corporation not to retrench the aforesaid workers without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 25 (N) and (F) of the industrial Disputes Act (in short the. D. Act) and for other incidental reliefs.

( 2 ) WHEN this petition came up for preliminary hearing I made an interim order on 13th March, 1986 directing the 3rd respondent, Labour Contractor, to provide for the workmen on the same terms and conditions on which they were employed as on 28th February, 1986,. e. when they were under the employment of the 2nd respondent/contractor. Despite this order, a grievance has been made by the petitioner that this order had not been implemented since there was some difference of opinion between the Corporation and the 3rd respondent/contractor on the terms on which these workmen should be engaged till the disposal of the Writ Petition. However, it is not necessary to go into that dispute since the main matter has been heard on merits.

( 3 ) THE workmen represented by the Petitioner Union claim that they were the employees of one venkateswara Transport Company (in short VTC) which was admittedly the Labour Contractor for the Corporation for the period from 3rd September, 1976 to 28th February 1984. This transport company had been engaged by the Corporation for supplying contract labour for the purpose of carrying out its day-to-day operations. The Corporation is admittedly an establishment within the meaning of Section 2 (3) (ii) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the Act) and is also an authority under Article 12 of the constitution. VTC had a licence as required under the Act for the period from 18th February, 1984 to 17th February 1985. The Corporation had registered itself as principal employer as required under Section 7 of the Act on 2nd February, 1980 and under the Certificate of registration it was permitted to engage VTC as its Labour Contractor. It was also permitted to engage a maximum number of 500 workmen in manual labour. This Certificate of Registration was obtained by the Corporation under Section 7 of the Act read with Rule 18 (1) of the karnataka Rules framed under the Act. From the Certificate of Registration produced before this court, it is clear that the Corporation did not have the Registration Certificate in his favour for engaging the 2nd respondent as its contractor for the period from 1st March, 1984 to 28th february, 1986. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent had a valid licence when it entered into a contract with the Corporation for supplying Contract Labour to meet its requirements. Though the Corporation has denied that the workers of the Union are not the workers of VTC, a mere denial would not raise a disputed question of fact in these proceedings since the record discloses that the 2nd respondent/contractor had engaged the services of the very workers who were employed by VTC as is evident from the settlement in the course of conciliation under the. D. Act produced as Annexure 'b' in the petition. That settlement was executed on 1st March, 1984 and was in force for a period of 2 years till terminated as per the provisions of the. D. Act. Earlier to this settlement there was another settlement between the petitioner Union representing these workers and VTC as is evident from Annexure 'a' in the Writ Petition. That was a settlement in the cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document