ORDER :

Heard Shri. B.K. Sampath Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri. S.V. Shastri, the learned counsel for the respondent Management led by learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ramdas.

Facts in brief:-

2. The case of the petitioners is that they have been discharging the duties of the respondent company under various labour contractors and that the date of their entry or rather the date on which their association commenced with the respondent company varies from 1974 to 1997 and all the petitioners are working in Foundry & Forge Division of the respondent company. There is no dispute with regard to the date of commencement of their association with the company. The respondents do not deny the fact that they initially came to be appointed as contract labourers nor does it deny the fact that they continue in the same capacity even as on this day albeit under different labour contractors from time to time. Everyone of them has put in more than a minimum of two decades of service with the respondent under the caption “Contract Labourers”.

3. Hence, the present Writ Petitions have been filed before this Hon’ble Court praying this court to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and grant them the relief as prayed. There are, in all, fifteen petitioners whose cause is jointly canvassed as they involve common facts and question of law.

4. Petitioners are working as contract labourers for several decades under various contractors employed by the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (hereinafter referred to as the First Respondent). Respondent No.2 is the Human Resource and Administrative Officer, Corporate office HAL. Currently the petitioners are working in Foundry and Forge Division of the First Respondent. The First Respondent admits to the petitioners being in employment through their respective contractors. However, it out-rightly denies any employer-employee relationship with the petitioners.

5. It is the case of First Respondent that they call for tenders from the contractors specifying the nature of work to be executed on contract basis, the period and the estimated cost, and it is for the contractor who qualifies for the tender to appoint/engage any person of his choice.

6. It is contended by the petitioners that, on 02-02-1988 the First Respondent issued a circular wherein it was stated that person/s who had worked as a casual labour/term contract with the First Respondent and who have completed more than 240 days of attendance would be considered for absorption under various divisions mentioned in the circular issued by HAL. Pursuant to this circular, a meeting was held between the management of First Respondent and the workmen’s union of First Respondent, wherein the management stated that the list of employees entitled to absorption, is under consideration and it will take six months time to finalize the confirmation of the 1st batch of employees. The management further informed them about the existing ban on recruitment.

7. It is the case of the petitioners that First Respondent neglected and discriminated against the petitioners in the matter of absorption of their services against regular vacancies, resultantly the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P. Nos.8294-96/1998 C/w W.P. Nos.34916-26/1997 for directions to First Respondent to regularize their services as permanent employees. This Hon’ble Court by order dated 12.01.2000 was pleased to direct the petitioners to make an appropriate representation to the First Respondent.

8. It is submitted that thereafter the petitioners made a representation to the First Respondent praying for regularizing their service. In this regard two representations were made and the first representation was in the year 2000 and another representation was made on 14.01.2012. It is the further, case of the petitioners that P-1 to P-9 were given an opportunity to appear for an interview in the late 90’s while the remaining petitioners