Back
1998 Supreme(Cal) 458
High Court Of Calcutta
SATYABRATA SINGH
SUBIR KANJILAL - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. O. 12122 Of 1996
Decided On : 10/27/1998
A policy decision for absorption of contractor's labourers is prospective in nature and applies only to those who are working as contractor's labourers on the date of its issuance.
Headnote:
CONTRACT LABOUR - ABSORPTION OF CONTRACTOR'S LABOURERS - CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION AND ABOLITION) ACT, 1970 - SECTION 21 - POLICY DECISION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former employee of a contractor working at Durgapur Project Ltd., challenged the termination of his services and sought absorption as a regular employee as per a government order dated March 12, 1996.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not a contractor's labourer on March 12, 1996, the date of the government order, and therefore, he was not entitled to be considered for absorption in terms of the said policy decision.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to be absorbed as a regular employee under the government order dated March 12, 1996, despite the termination of his services prior to that date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the government order as being prospective in nature and applicable only to contractor's labourers who were working on the date of its issuance. The court also held that the termination of the petitioner's services by his employer was not declared illegal by any competent authority and, therefore, he could not be considered for absorption.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to be absorbed as a regular employee under the government order dated March 12, 1996.
( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ application has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs:"a) A Rule do issue out and under seal of the Hon'ble High Courf asking the respondents and each one of them to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued commanding them thereby to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the Contractors' labour seniority list upon mentioning his Provident Fund Account No. at Sl No. 219 and thereby pass, an order directing the respondents mostly Durgapur Project Ltd. Authorities to absorb the petitioner as per Government Order dated March 12, 1996 under Memo No. 269-Power/ IV issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal, Department of Power as per seniority of the petitioners, and thereby pass an order directing the Durgapur Project Ltd. Authorities to engage the petitioner as a Contract labourer as an 'electrician' until and unless the petitioner is not being absorbed as a regular employee as per Government Order being Annexure 'h' of this application. "
( 2 ) THE fact of the matter is as follows: the petitioner was an employee of a Contractor working at Durgapur Project Ltd. (respondent No. 7 herein), known as Lahiri Construction, It stands admitted that the petitioner had worked from December 7, 1984 to December 14, 1994. His name has been deleted from the muster roll with effect from December 15, 1994. The petitioner appears to have lodged a grievance before the District Magistrate, Burdwan and the matter at the instance of the District Magistrate was enquired into by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Durgapur who allegedly found that such termination was illegal. It appears that in the meantime, the respondent No. 9 submitted a proposal before the State Government for the purpose of absorption of the Contractor's labourers by a letter dated March 12, 1996 as contained in Annexure "h" to the writ application. The Joint Secretary of the State of West Bengal by a letter addressed to Managing Director, Durgapur Project Ltd. communicated the Government order and policy which is to the following effect:" (1) 469 (Four hundred sixty nine) Contractor's labourers my be absorbed strictly on seniority basis subject to their eligibility and suitability, against the same number of the sanctioned vacant posts against which the work now being managed by the Contractors' labourers. (2) No further Contractors' labourers/casual worker/daily labourer shall be engaged against vacancies or otherwise, without specific approval of this Department. "
( 3 ) THE petitioner contends that despite the fact that he had worked under the aforementioned Contractors Lahiri Construction for a period of more than 10 years, his service was illegally terminated and his case has not been considered for absorption in terms of the aforementioned policy decision dated March 12, 1996 as contained in Annexure "h" to the writ application.
( 4 ) THE respondent on the other hand contends that after the petitioner's service was terminated by his employer, he has been working in another place.
( 5 ) THE question as to whether any relief can be granted to the petitioner depends on the aforementioned policy decision dated March 12, 1996. The said policy decision undoubtedly is prospective in nature. In terms of the aforementioned policy decision only 469 Contractor's labourers could be absorbed strictly on seniority basis subject to the condition that the same number of posts are vacant.
( 6 ) AS on March 12, 1996 the petitioner was not a Contractors' labourer, he was not entitled to be considered for absorption in terms of the said policy decision. The question raised at the Bar to the effect that the termination of service of the petitioner by the aforementioned Lahiri Construction has been found illegal by the District Magistrate is of no moment. The said authority is not statutorily empowered to declare the termination of the petitioner's services as invalid, inasmuch as, no po
