High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. PALANIVELU
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., & Others
Versus
N.L.C. Indco Serve Thozhilalar Uzhiyear Sangam & Others
W.A.Nos.2045 of 2002 & 2529 of 2002 and M.P.Nos.3458, 4266 of 2002 and 4190 of 2003 and W.V.M.P.No.2149 of 2003 in M.P.No.2458 of 2002
Decided on : 16-02-2008
Labour Dispute - Absorption of Contract Labour - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India - Section 12(3) settlement - The court discussed the settlement reached under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the entitlement of contract labourers to claim seniority during the absorption process. The court highlighted the legal principles established by the Supreme Court regarding the fixation of seniority during the process of absorption of workmen and emphasized the importance of considering seniority to avoid violation of constitutional provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC) was petitioned by a union to absorb and regularize its members as employees of the corporation with all monetary and service benefits. The union claimed that the corporation's failure to absorb its members amounted to unfair labour practice. The corporation had entered into a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to absorb the workers in stages over a period of five years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act did not bind the petitioner's union and confirmed the direction of the learned single Judge to consider the seniority of all workers coming within the eligible category during the absorption process. The court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of considering seniority to avoid violation of constitutional provisions.
Issues: The issues revolved around the entitlement of contract labourers to claim seniority during the absorption process, the validity of the settlement reached under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the legality of the corporation's actions in absorbing members without considering seniority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established the legal principle that the fixation of seniority at the time of absorption is essential to avoid violation of constitutional provisions. It emphasized the importance of considering seniority and the length of continuous service for the determination of seniority, especially in the absence of any prescribed rule for seniority fixation.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the direction of the learned single Judge to consider the seniority of all workers coming within the eligible category during the absorption process and dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of considering seniority to avoid violation of constitutional provisions.
S. Palanivelu, J.
Both these writ appeals are directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 15. 2002, made in W.P.No.8 of 1996. The said writ petition was filed by N.L.C.INDCO SERVE Thozhilalar Uzhiyar Sangam, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus to forbear the first respondent therein viz. the Neyveli Lignite Corporation, its men, officers, agents and servants from absorbing any contract labour or any other employee either permanently or temporarily in the first respondent Corporation without following the seniority on the basis of the date of entry in Corporation either as a contract labour or directly and consequently direct the first respondent to absorb and regularise the members of the petitioner union as employees of the first respondent Corporation with all monetary and service benefits with effect from the date of entry into service in the first respondent Corporation either as a contract labour or otherwise.
2. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties is referred to as per their ranking in the Writ Petition No.8 of 1996.
3. The averments of the Writ Petition, in short, are as follows:-
The first respondent is a Public Sector Undertaking. N.L.C.Indco Serve Thozhilalar uzhigar Sangam is represented by its President N.Narayanan. The Neyveli Lignite Corporation (herein after referred to as NLC) and the Managing Director N.L.C.Indco Serve are the first and the third respondents in the Writ Petition. The second respondent therein is Assistant Commissioner of Labour (C), Shastri Bhavan at Madras. The fourth to tenth respondents are various labour unions, whose members are employees of NLC. The members of the petitioner union are engaged through contractors as employees for the effective functioning of the first respondent. They had been continuously employed as such ranging from 15 years to 19 years. As per the provisions of the labour welfare legislations such as Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by this time, the first respondent should have absorbed all the members of the petitioner union as permanent employees on regular basis and the failure on their part would amount to “unfair labour practice”. The NLC Industrial Co-operative Service Society Limited (in short as NLC.) was formed on 10.05.1990 with the below mentioned object:-
“The object of the society is to take and execute various items of work entrusted to it by the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., within its area of operation and to provide employment to its members/workers and work for economic uplift bearing in mind their object, the workman shall always endeavour for satisfying the Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd., by diligent and efficient work.”
4. The said society is a registered one under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The N.L.C.Indco serve is a State within the meaning of Article-12 of the Constitution of India. There are nearly 1,400 employees, who are the members of the petitioner union. It is the duty of N.L.C.Indco Serve to regularise the members in the first respondent Corporation on the basis of seniority fixed on the strength of the date of entry into service therein either through contractors or directly. The petitioner’s union members are entitled to claim absorption with seniority. Hence, the petitioner union forwarded a written representation dated 29.06.1994 to the Chief Minister’s Cell and various authorities narrating their grievances in detail. The first respondent even after getting it have not taken any steps. Again, a consideration petition dated 24.04.1995 was given to the second respondent. On the basis of the consideration petition, conciliation proceedings were initiated. However, no effective result has been achieved and the Management is keeping quiet without appearance.
5. When the matter stood thus, respondents 1 and 3 are absorbing members of N.L.C.Indco Serve as well as non-members, as per their whims and fancies without following any principle including the one of seniority.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.