( 1 ) RULE. Shri M. R. Bhatt, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of respondent No. 1. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of respondent No. 2. Shri Samir Dave, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appears for respondents No. 3 and 4.

( 2 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india the petitioner Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha (hereinafter referred to as SUnion) has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No. 3 conciliation Officer to complete the conciliation proceedings within the period of one month and submit his report to the appropriate authority and the respondent No. 4 appropriate authority may be directed to take the decision with respect to making the Reference to the Industrial tribunal of the demands raised by the Union which is at annexure SI to the petition pending in Conciliation Case no. BRS/alc/8 (33)/05 within the period of 15 days thereafter. Another prayer is for a declaration that decision to terminate the concerned workmen of the demands at Annexure i to the petition and pending conciliation proceedings is unjust and improper and in violation of the provisions of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Sthe I. D. Act for short) and specifically in violation of the different provisions of the ID Act like Section 9a and section 44 of the I. D. Act. By way of interim relief the petitioner Union has prayed for restraining the respondents no. 1 and 2 from removing the concerned workmen from service or discontinuing their services with IOCL, Gandhar, LPG bottling Plant, i. e. , respondent No. 1 or in any manner altering the service conditions of the concerned workmen and the demands to their prejudice and also to maintain status- quo.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner union that the 12 concerned workmen have joined the services of IOC Ltd, gandhar, LPG Bottling Plant and that they have been engaged in regular and perennial and permanent work with respondent no. 1, IOC Ltd. It is their case that they are in continuous employment with IOCL, despite the fact that the contractors through whom they are paid are changed from time to time. It is also the case that the present contract with respondent no. 2 herein M/s. Dak and Company has come into existence with effect from 15th April 2002 and their contract period is to expire. It is the case of the petitioner union that they have issued a Strike-cum-Demand Notice dated 24th March 2005 to the IOCL and they have demanded regularisation, permanency and absorption of all the concerned workmen from the respective date of their joining the services. It is also demanded that the so-called arrangement of contract labour system should be declared and treated as sham, bogus and paper arrangement which has been created to exploit this workmen. It is also demanded that the said workmens employment should be continued even if the contractor is changed. It is the case of the petitioner that the union had also approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central) who is the Conciliation Officer, vide their letter dated 24th March 2005 and he had issued a conciliation notice also fixing the date of conciliation proceeding on 7th April 2005. It is the case of petitioner union that as they have served a strike/demand notice to IOCL the respondent No. 1 IOCL has taken a decision that the services of the respondent workmen will not be continued after 30th april 2005, i. e. , on the date the contract between the respondent No. 1 IOCL and respondent No. 2 contractor expires and therefore the petitioner has preferred the present special Civil Application for the aforesaid reliefs.

( 4 ) SHRI Mukul Sinha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner union has relied upon various orders passed by this Court by which while disposing of the petition filed by the union wherein the prayer was with regard to abolition of the contract system and to treat the workmen as employees of the principal emp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document