BINU GEORGE Vs. DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this writ petition pray for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent company to engage petitioners for loading and unloading works in the quarry site at the rate fixed by the 1st respondent as ensured in Ext.P3 judgment dated 16.12.2015 and to give them compensation amount fixed as per Ext.P2 agreement.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at sufficient length of time. She argued that petitioners were employed by the 3 rd respondent Company as workers for loading and unloading excavated granite stones in the tipper lorries. It is further argued that the 3 rd respondent Company is now carrying out loading and unloading works with the help of large and heavy machines. As a result of which, petitioner workers have completely deprived of their job rendering them unemployed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Ext.P2 agreement, by which the 3 rd respondent had agreed to pay compensation and that agreement was valid up to 31.03.2015 only. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that subsequently, there is Ext.P4 memorandum of settlement entered into between the parties on 14.11.2018, by which it was agreed to by the 3rd respondent that the work of physical loading will be done in 35 vehicles holding passes and having 150 feet capacity. It is further agreed that if vehicles having passes have not reached, the physical loading will be done in next 350 feet capacity lorries. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that unfortunately, in the said conciliation proceedings, the Deputy Labour Officer/Conciliation Officer has failed to mention the rate of wages in the settlement. It is further argued that now the 3rd respondent has its own tipper lorries for loading the granite stones and he do not want to pay anything to the labourers. The learned counsel further argued that the Deputy Labour Officer/Conciliation Officer ought to have fixed the quantum of wages paid to the petitioners in Ext.P4 memorandum of settlement. By pointing out this, it is argued that the 3rd respondent be directed to engage petitioners as labourers in the loading and unloading work done at the site by the 3rd respondent.