The main legal point established is the necessity of providing suitable relaxation in age, educational qualifications, and job standards for erstwhile contractual security guards in compliance with court directions and relevant legal provisions.

JUDGMENT

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - This petition has been filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging violation of the directions contained in the order dated 28.2.2019 passed in CWP-20928-2017 titled as 'Harchand Singh and others Versus Food Corporation of India and another', order dated 28.2.2019 passed in LPA-930-2018 titled as 'Bishan Lal and others Versus Food Corporation of India and others' and the directions contained in the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Steel Authority of India Limited Versus National Union Water Front Workers' (2001) 7 SCC 1.

2. The petitioners were employed as Security Guards in the Food Corporation of India in District Sangrur through Contractors. The dates of their appointment as Security Guards have been detailed in Annexure P4. It is stated that a number of persons were similarly employed as Watchmen at various Depots of the Food Corporation of India. They were also engaged as contract labour through the Contractor. They served as such for number of years. The appointment letters used to be issued by the Contractor who used to endorse copies to the Assistant Manager of the FCI Depot where the watchman was engaged. On the basis of attendance record maintained by the Contractor, the payment used to be released by the FCI to the Contractor who then disbursed it to the contract labour.

3. After the enactment of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 ( for short "CLRA Act"), the Central Government issued Notification dated 9.12.1976 under Section 10 thereof, whereby, employment of contract labour for watching of buildings in respect of establishments with regard to which the Central Government was the 'appropriate Government' was prohibited. Some collegaues of the petitioners filed CWP-4695-1999 titled as 'Sunil Kumar and others Versus FCI and others' for issuance of directions to the FCI to treat them as regular employees of FCI and not to terminate their services. The said writ petition was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 2.8.2002 with a direction that the petitioners would be entitled to relief in the light of the observations of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited's case (supra).

4. The petitioners, who are similarly situated as the petitioners in CWP-4695-1999, filed CWP-10445-2001 titled 'Harchand Singh and others Versus FCI and others' praying for quashing the action of respondents in terminating their services and employing Home Guards and SPOs from the Punjab Police against the posts of Security Guards where the petitioners were earlier working. This petition was disposed of vide order dated 21.2.2003 in terms of the decision in CWP-4695-1999. It is thereby contended that the petitioners were also entitled to consideration in the light of the observations of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited (supra).

5. The Food Corporation of India, Regional Office Punjab, Chandigarh published a Recruitment Notice No.01/2017/Punjab, inviting on-line applications for 864 posts of Watchmen in various Depots in the State of Punjab. The petitioners filed CWP-20928-2017 challenging the recruitment notice. Their primary grievance was against Clause No.9 (i), (iv), (v) under the Heading ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR ERSTWHILE CONTRACTUAL SECURITY GUARDS of the said notice and Clause 1 (i) (ii) of SELECTION PROCESS specified in the notice whereby a written examination and Physical Endurance Test was made compulsory even for the erstwhile contractual Security Guards and they were not granted any relaxation/exemption in respect of passing the written examination and Physical Endurance Test. CWP-20928-2017 was heard alongwith LPA- 930-2018. In the course of the hearing of the cases on 6.2.2019, the Division Bench observed that prima facie the impugned advertisement prescribing conditions and the criteria of selection appeared to be designed to deny benefit to the contract labour