JUDGMENT - D.R. DHANUKA, J. :—-By this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought a declaration that the petitioners and the employees whose names are set out in list Exhibit A to the petition are entitled to be regularised and/or treated as direct employees of the 1st respondent and not the employees of the contractor i.e. the respondent No. 2 in the petition. The petitioners have also sought issue of a writ of mandamus, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to regularise the services of the petitioners and other employees listed in the list Exhibit A to the petition and treat them as regular employees of the 1st respondent from such date as may be fixed by this Honourable Court. The petitioners have further sought issue of a writ of mandamus so as to direct the 1st respondent to absorb the petitioners and other watchmen listed in Exhibit A to the petition as its own employees, with retrospective affect. The petitioners have also sought certain consequential reliefs in this behalf by prayer (c) of the petition. By prayer (b) of the petition, the petitioners had in the alternative sought issue of a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to abolish the employment of contract labour as watchmen for the work and business of the 1st respondent. The petitioners have not pressed prayer (b) of the petition at the hearing of the petition. The petitioners have contended though not pleaded in the petition that the contract labour is relation to employment of contract labour on and from 1st March, 1977 inter alia in relation to watching of buildings owned or occupied by establishments in respect of which the appropriate Government under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 has stood abolished on and from 1st March, 1977 and the case of petitioners falls within the purview of notification dated 9th December, 1976 issued by the Central Government under section 10(1) of the Act copy whereof is Exhibit "K" to the petition. The petitioners are permitted to urge this contention on basis of factual averments made in the petition.

1A. In paragraph 4 of the petition, the petitioners have averred that the 1st respondent always had a regular and perennial need for watchmen and security staff to look after its ships, cargoes and containers in the Bombay Docks. There is no specific plea in the petition to the affect that the petitioners were employed as contract labour to watch the buildings owned or occupied by the establishments in relation to which the Central Government was appropriate Government under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.

2. On 9th December, 1976, the Central Government had issued a notification bearing No. S.O. 779 (E) in exercise of the power conferred on it by sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. A copy of the said notification is Annexure Exhibit "K" to the petition. By the said notification, the Central Government prohibited employment of contract labour on and from the 1st March, 1977 for sweeping, cleaning, dusting and watching of buildings owned or occupied by establishments in respect of which the appropriate Government under the said Act was the Central Government. Proviso to the said notification is not relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition. The petitioners have averred in para 34 of the petition that the failure of the 3rd respondent to prohibit employment of contract labour in their case just as in the cases covered by notification Exhibit "K" to the petition was arbitrary and discriminatory. At the hearing of the petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioners did not press prayer (b) of the petition seeking issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 3 to abolish the employment of contract labour as watchmen for the work and business of the 1st respondent but contended that the employment of contract labour in the instant case had stood

Click Here to Read the rest of this document