- (1.) FIVE writ petitions were filed on behalf of the Workmen individually as well as through their Union who were working under the Labour Contractor at the National Thermal Power Corporation Limited project at Shakti Nagar Distt. Sonbhadra. Now the said National Thermal power Corporation has been named as Singrauli Super Thermal power station, Shakti Nagar Distt. Sonbhadra. Writ petition no. 18596 of 1990 and 18595 of 1990 filed by the All India Engineering and General Mazdoor Union have been dismissed as infructuous. The three petitions namely Writ petition No. 33388/90: S. K. Upadhyay and others v. National Thermal Power Corporation and others and two other writ petition nos. 26015/90 and 29536/90 have been heard together as the controversy involved in these three petitions are common and it may be decided by one common judgment. This counter, rejoinder, supplementary counter and supplementary rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the petitions are ready for hearing. Without passing orders for admission the petitions being heard finally with the consent of the parties and the Rules of the Court. The W. P. No. 33388/90 S. K. Upadhyya and others is treated as the leading case.
(2.) BY the petition, the petitioners have prayed for [issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated 19-11-90 (Annexure- 6 to the writ petition) for terminating the services of the petitioners of the leading writ petition. The second prayer is for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 and 2 to regularise the services of the petitioners and make them permanent employees of the respondent no. 2 -w.e.f. the date of their engagement in the service of the respondent no. 2. Thirdly, the prayer is that writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondent no. 3 to take immediate action under section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The other two prayers are formal in nature. The petitioners case in the writ petitions is that there is a big concern by name, M/s. National Thermal power corporation who are engaged in the generation of electricity through Thermal plants. The Organisation is a very big Organisation and they have a plant having capacity of 200 Mg. Wt. units for the production of electricity. There are five generating Units. The petitioner's claim that they were.appointed through trade test in their respective trades e.g. Fitter Welder, Rigger and Helper and their tests was taken by the Engineers and Senior Officers of the National Thermal power Corporation (in short here-in-after mentioned as N.T.P.C.). The petitioners though are working for last number of years regularly with N.T.P.C. they have not been regularised and are kept on daily wages. The petitioners pleaded that they are working directly under the control and supervision of the Engineers and Senior Officers of the N.T.P.C. but to camouflage and avoid the legal benefits which accrued to the workmen, the NTPC got Contractors in between. The contractors are engaged by the NTPC respondent who are only concerned with making payment to the workmen once in a month. They have no other work except for making payment to the Workmen. The petitioners further urged that NTPC cleverly had been changing the Contractors from time to time. The petitioner who are skilled worker continued working for the NTPC but they are paid as daily wages workers through different contractors from time to time. The submission of the petitioners is that the process of electricity generation is a continuous process and the petitioners and other workers are engaged for regular job, the petitioners stated that there are three shifts in 24 hours and they attend regularly to the plant and also attend at the time of some break-downs etc. The petitioners have thus tried to emphasise that they are regular worker of the NTPC, and are regularly working with them, but on account of the camouflage of the NTPC, they are being treated as daily wages workers under the contractors. The petitioners have received one notice, Annexure '6' with the writ petitions by which the Contractor, M/s. Upendra Engineering and Company, served the petitioners with notice dated 17-4-90 that all the persons working in emergency break-down, the running maintenance of Ash Handling System Stage Ist, Working on daily wages under a contract shall cease to work w.e f. 20-12-90. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said notice approached this Court by the writ petition and claimed a relief, already stated in the earlier paragraphs. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed the provisions of section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (here in after referred to as the Act) provisions of section 7 of the Act are quoted as under. "Registration of certain establishment :- (1) Every principal employer of an establishment to which this Act applies shall, within such period as the appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, fix in this behalf with respect to establishments generally or with respect to any class of them, make an application to the registering officer in the prescribed manner for registration of the establish ment : Provided that the registering officer may entertain any such application for registration after expiry of the period fixed in this behalf, if the registering officer is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application in time. (2) If the application for registration is complete in all respects, the registering officer shall register the establishment and issue to the principal employer of the establishment a certificate of registration containing such particulars as may be prescribed."
(3.) THE submission of the petitioners is that the NTPC respondents are not registered as required under section 7 of the Act. Thus they are not legally competent to engage contractors for engaging the workmen on daily wages. THE moment it is held that NTPC are not registered under section 7 of the said Act. the petitioners and all workmen working through the contractors shall be deemed in law to be direct employee of NTPC. THE petitioners averments in the writ petition that the respondent no. 2, NTPC, were not registered under section 7 of the Act is denied by the respondent no. 2. In the rejoinder affidavit, it has been pointed out by the petitioners that the NTPC respondent no. 2 was registered in 1978. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the registration made in 1978 was specified for a particular purpose and for particular assignment. THE respondent no. 2 has not got their registration amended and they are illegally taking work from the petitioners which amounts to violation of law. He further urged that since the registration of the respondent no. 2 under section 7 was not for the purpose which actually the respondent no. 2 are doing, it shall be deemed to be a nullity in the eye of law. The allegation of the petitioners that respondent NTPC was not registered under section 7 of the Act was denied by them. The petitioners have not been able to show that for what particular purpose the registration was made in 1978 and what was the change or variations in the nature of work of the respondent during this period. The fact has been stated without any material document to substantiate that there was any variation in purpose in the registration. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to cite any provision of law which required renewal of the registration under the Act. It has also not been shown that the registration made in favour of the respondent NTPC was cancelled. The registration once made could be revoked under provision of section 8 of the Act. The provisions of section 8 are reproduced as under : "Revocation of registration of certain cases :- If the registering officer is satisfied, either on a reference made to him in this behalf or otherwise, that the registration of any establishment has been obtained by misrepresentation or suppression of any material fact, or that for any other reason the registration has become useless or ineffective and, therefore, requires to be revoked, the registering officer may after giving an opportunity to the principal employer of the establishment to be heard and with the previous approval of the appropriate Government, revoke the registration." ;