Point of Law: Contractual employee – Regularization of - Since CWC is responsible for disrupting the status quo, which prevailed before 06.01.2021, it would have to continue the services of the workmen who were on the rolls of SFPL.

JUDGMENT :

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface:- ....................................................................................................... 3

Background facts: - ...................................................................................... 4

Submissions on behalf of the parties: - ........................................................ 12

Workmen represented by Mrs. Asha Jain Madan: - ....................................... 12

Workmen represented by Mr. Anuj Agarwal: - ............................................ 17

CWC: - ......................................................................................................... 19

SFPL: - ......................................................................................................... 21

RR: - ............................................................................................................. 22

Analysis and Reasons ................................................................................... 24

Conclusion: - ................................................................................................ 45

Preface: -

1. I have before me three applications for consideration. Two applications, i.e., CM No. 1291/2021 and CM No. 2812/2021 have been filed in W.P. (C) 482/2021 while the third application i.e. CM No. 742/2021 has been filed in W.P. (C) 4114/2008. Although, while reserving the judgment, on 25.03.2021, inadvertently, reference was made only to CM No. 742/2021, filed in W.P. (C) 4114/2008 and CM No. 2812/2021, filed in W.P. (C) 482/2021, the third application, i.e., CM No. 1291/2021 would also get disposed of, as CM No. 2812/2021 filed in W.P. (C) 482/2021 only seeks clarification of the status quo order dated 13.01.2021, passed in CM No. 1291/2021, in that very writ petition.

2. The issues, which arise for consideration, in these three applications, being similar, in my view, can be disposed of by a common order. Keeping this in mind, I, thus, intend to advert to the facts and circumstances, which have led to the institution of the aforementioned actions, with a plea for grant of interlocutory directions. As would be evident, from the cause title and the number of the interlocutory applications, CM No. 742/2021 has been filed in a pending writ petition while the remaining two applications i.e. CM No. 1291/2021 and 2812/2021 have been filed in a fresh writ petition. CM No. 742/2021 has been filed by the workmen, who are arrayed as respondent nos. 2 to 225, while CM No. 1291/2021 and CM No. 2812/2021 have been filed in a substantive action preferred by 105 workmen. Thus, for the sake of convenience, the contesting parties will be referred to as follows.

i. The applicants in the aforementioned interlocutory applications would be collectively referred to as workmen.

ii. The petitioner in W.P. (C) 4114/2008 and respondent no. 1 in W.P. (C) 482/2021, i.e., Central Warehousing Corporation would be referred to as ‘CWC’.

iii. The two handling and transportation contractors i.e. Suman Forwarding Agency Private Limited and M/s Rahul Roadways would be referred to as ‘SFPL’ and ‘RR’ respectively.

Background facts: -

3. The record is suggestive of the fact that, in and about January 2000, a writ petition came to be instituted by some workmen, principally, for seeking regularization of their services with CWC, and for issuance of a notification for the abolition of contract labour. This writ petition came to be numbered as W.P. (C) 48/2000. Thereafter, another set of workmen filed a writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) 4407/2000, wherein similar reliefs were sought.

3.1. On 06.01.2000, notice was issued in W.P. (C) 48/2000. While issuing notice, this Court had directed that the services of the workmen (petitioners in W.P. (C) 48/2000) should not be substituted with contract workers.

3.2. The said writ petition was disposed of, on 17.10.2000, based on a common submission, advanced on behalf of the counsels for the parties, that the dispute raised in the said w