Pump Operators engaged through a tender process are not entitled to regularization under the Industrial Establishments Act, as they did not enter employment through the required recruitment process.

JUDGMENT :

The point under consideration in this intra court appeal is whether the Pump Operators engaged by the first respondent Town Panchayat during the year 1998 on daily wage and later on monthly wage for the rate quoted by them in the tender called by the Panchayat are entitle regularisation of service with the aid of Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981.

2.The appellants 1, 2, 4, 5 and the husband of the third appellant claiming that they are all continuously engaged by the respondent panchayat as pump operators, initially with daily wage of Rs.53/- and later with monthly wage. The wage is paid directly to them by the Panchayat. While so, treating them as contract labourers, the panchayat is refusing to regularise their service.

3.Relying upon G.O.Ms.198, dated 26.10.1998, which prescribes minimum qualification for the post of Pump Operators and sanction of posts and the resolutions passed by the Panchayat on various dates, the industrial dispute raised.

The Labour Court in I.D.No.51 of 2014 vide order dated 03.18.2015 held that,

i) the petitioners were engaged by the panchayat as pump operators for more than 10 years continuously. They were paid Pongal bonus and were given other duties on rotation.

ii) Though they were not appointed through the recommendation of the Employment Office, they were all duly registered in Employment Exchange.

iii) Payment of consolidated wage will not disentitle them to get regularisation.

iv) Service of two other workers were regularised stating that they joined service before 31.12.1996, while so, the petitioners cannot be discriminated and denied regularisation.

4.In the result, allowed the petition in favour of the petitioners and directed the Panchayat to regularise their service and to pay salary from 16.02.2014 par with the pump operators appointed on permanent basis.

5.The above award passed by the Labour Court challenged by the Town Panchayat in W.P(MD)No.4496 of 2016. Pending writ petition, the pump operators filed Claim Petition Nos.86 of 2016 to enforce the award. Hence, the Town Panchayat filed W.P(MD)No.2492 of 2017 to quash the Claim Petition 86 of 2016.

6.The Town Panchayat contended that the respondents in the writ petition were never employed by them as workmen nor they were employed in any sanctioned post of ‘Pump Operator’. For the Town Panchayat, under a tender process of outsourcing the job of pump operators, these respondents were successful bidders. Their service utilised as per the contract on yearly basis. The G.O., relied and referred by the respondents applicable only to persons, who were engaged prior to 31.12.1996 that too appointed through employment exchange. The respondents neither engaged prior to 31.12.1996 nor were engaged through employment exchange.

7.The learned single Judge, on considering the tender documents presented by the respondents accepted the plea of the Town Panchayat and passed the common order on 19.04.2023. The learned single Judge has held that, regularisation of service and conferment of permanent status are two different concepts in service jurisprudence. For regularisation of service, the employee ought to have participated in the recruitment process and got selected by following the necessary recruitment Rules, including rule of reservation. Conferment of permanent status for a workmen, who had put up 480 days of service is not for persons engaged through tender. Conferment of permanent Status Act is not applicable to Town Panchayat. With these observations, the both the writ petitions were allowed. The learned single Judge however gave liberty to the respondents to participate in the recruitment process in future when the Town Panchayat go for recruitment. In such circumstances, weightage to the experience of the respondents to be given.

8.In the Writ Appeal, the pump operators contend that, they were not employed by the Town Panchayat through any contractor. They were directly employed and paid directl