The main legal point established in the judgment is that workmen, having accepted the offer of appointment without objection, could not file a petition under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order passed in W.P.No.34064 of 2012 dated 1/8/2018.)

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. Challenge in the writ appeal is to the order dated 1/8/2018, passed in W.P.No.34064 of 2012, by which a learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated 26/10/2012 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai, which has rejected the claim petition of the respondents herein filed under Section 33 (C) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2. Respondents/writ petitioners were working with the appellant. They were engaged as Sanitary and Cleaning workers on contractual basis. Advertisement was issued by the appellant inviting applications for recruitment to the very same post on which the petitioners were working. This Notification was challenged by the respondents workmen stating that their services should be regularised and they should be given the jobs rather than issuing advertisement for filling up the posts which were being occupied by them. Challenge was made before the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.489 of 1997.

3. By an order, dated 17/6/1998, the Central Administrative Tribunal, directed the appellants herein to evolve a scheme for absorption of the contract workers/workmen, who were working on contract basis. The Tribunal held that till a scheme is framed and the workmen are absorbed, the appellant herein is free to select workmen amongst the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange and that it should be made clear to the so selected workmen that continuance of their services in the organisation will be subject to the rights of the persons who are entitled to get absorption as permanent workers i.e., the workers who had approached the Tribunal.

4. This order was challenged in this Court in W.P.No.19713 of 1998. This Court by its judgment dated 5/11/2004, directed the Central Government to refer the matter under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Industrial Tribunal and directed the Industrial Tribunal to pass award. Accordingly, the matter was referred to in I.D.No.9 of 2008, referring the following question to the Tribunal:-

“Whether the demand of Sri.S.Amalraj and 23 other workers, as per Annexure for absorption in the services of the management of M/s. Heavy Alloy Penetrator Project, Trichy, is legal and justified? If yes, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?”

5. Tribunal by an award dated 8th May 2009, answered the reference, directing the Management appellant herein to regularise the services of the workmen and to extend to them all the benefits at par with their counter part workmen who had been appointed on regular basis. The labour Court, directed the appellant to commence the process of regularisation of the workmen with immediate effect.

6. The order of the labour Court was challenged in W.P.No.20682 of 2009 in this Court. This Court, by judgment dated 5/3/2010, rejected the challenge and directed the appellant to implement the award within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The matter was thereafter, taken up in W.A.No.473 of 2011, that was dismissed on 17/3/2011.

7. The appellant, thereafter, filed a Special Leave Petition being SLP (C) CC.No.16158 of 2011 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by its order dated 21/10/2011, rejected the SLP. Order of the Tribunal, dated 17/6/1998 has therefore, attained finality whereby the workmen were entitled to be regularised.

8. The Management did not comply with the order of the Tribunal, which resulted in Contempt Petition No.975 of 2011. Five workmen filed a Contempt Petition. The General Manager of the appellant, filed an affidavit stating that direction of the Tribunal has been complied with. Out of five employees, three employees, who have been directed to undergo medical initiation to assess their medical fitness. After disposal of the Contempt Petition, appellant issued appointment orders. It was stated in the appo