Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 861
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BENCH
R.S. Jha, J.
M.P. Bijali Meter Readers Karmachari Sangh and Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Advisory Contract Labour Board and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 8739, 14855 of 2015
Decided On : 17-06-2016
For the Petitioners: Shri K.N. Pethia, Learned Counsel.
For the Respondents: Shri Mukesh Agarwal, learned counsel.
Meter readers engaged on a contract basis are not entitled to regular employment benefits.
Headnote:
Meter Readers - Contractual Engagement - Contract Labour (Regularization and Abolition) Act 1970 - Section 4, Contract Labour Act - Section 2(oo)(bb) - Punjab State Electricity Board v. Sudesh Kumar Puri (2007) 2 SCC 428, Surinder Singh v. Union of India (2007) 11 SCC 599 - The court discussed the issue of engaging meter readers on a contractual basis and the applicability of the Contract Labour Act. It relied on the decisions in Punjab State Electricity Board v. Sudesh Kumar Puri and Surinder Singh v. Union of India to conclude that meter readers engaged on a contract basis are not entitled to regular employment benefits.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, an association of meter readers, sought to quash advertisements for fresh engagement of meter readers on a contractual basis. They also sought to declare the members who completed more than 240 days of service as permanent employees entitled to all benefits of permanent employees.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petitions, citing previous similar cases and holding that meter readers engaged on a contract basis are not entitled to regular employment benefits.
Issues: The issues revolved around the regularization of meter readers engaged on a contractual basis and their entitlement to permanent employee benefits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on previous decisions and the Contract Labour Act to conclude that meter readers engaged on a contract basis are not entitled to regular employment benefits.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed, and the court upheld the previous decisions denying regular employment benefits to meter readers engaged on a contract basis.
Shri R.S. Jha, J.
1. The petitioners are an association of meter readers who have been engaged pursuant to an agreement entered into by them for the purposes of meter reading on contract basis. It is stated that the petitioners were initially engaged for a period of three years which period was subsequently been extended further by three years but no extension thereafter has been made and the respondents/authorities have now issued the impugned advertisements dated 21.11.2014 and 24.2.2015 seeking to make fresh engagement of meter readers on contractual basis by entering into an agreement with them. In the present petitions the petitioners have stated that they have also filed an application before the State Advisory Contract Labour Board constituted under Section 4 of the Contract Labour (Regularization and Abolition) Act 1970 against the respondents but no decision thereon has been taken. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions, the petitioners have filed the present petitions praying for quashing of the impugned advertisements; to prohibit the respondents from out sourcing the work of meter readers through service providers; to declare the members of the petitioner/union who have completed more than 240 days of service as permanent and regular employees entitled to all benefits of permanent/regular employee and to declare the action on the part of the respondents authorities to engage meter readers on contract basis as illegal.
2. The issue raised by the petitioners have a checkered history inasmuch as similar issues have been raised before this Court since 2006 and various orders in that regard have already been passed and in one of the cases which has been referred to by the petitioners, W.P. No. 1110/2009 this Court has relegated the petitioners to take up remedies before the Labour Court, pursuant to which the petitioners have taken the issue before the Labour Court which is pending adjudication.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the aforesaid aspect of pendency of the litigation before the Labour Court and the Board has insisted upon perusing the present petitions regardless of consequences of the decision of the present petitions on the issue pending before the labour court as it is stated that the respondents/authorities are engaging persons on contract basis afresh and are also out sourcing the work of meter readers and therefore, in any case they should be prohibited from doing so till the decision by the Labour Court.
4. At this stage it is noteworthy that the learned counsel appearing for both the parties do not dispute the fact that similar and identical petition raising similar and identical issues, W.P.No. 14090/2015 has been dismissed by this Court relying on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Sudesh Kumar Puri (2007) 2 SCC 428 and W.P. No. 20549/2015 has been dismissed by this Court relying on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Surinder Singh v. Union of India (2007) 11 SCC 599 as well as orders passed by this Court in W.P. No 15550/2006(s), W.A. No. 1154/2006 decided on 15.11.2006 as modified in MCC No. 1014/2007.
W.P. No. 14090/2015 was decided by this Court on 15.9.2015 in the following terms :-
“Shri Ranjan Benerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vikram Johri, Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State. Petitioner has filed this petition for the following reliefs:-
1. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the advertisement (ANNEXUREP/1) dated 14/05/2015. In alternate, if by virtue of ANNEXURE P/1 further appointments are made,then in such event, the working of the petitioner should not be terminated by the respondents as their working is satisfactory till date.
2. If fresh appointments are to be made by virtue of the advertisement ANNEXURE P/1 then it should only be for the vacant posts and not by terminating the petitioner and filling up his vacancy.
3. Any oth
