G.R.Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) The petitioners has been initially working under a contractor at Burnpur since 1974 in the furnace dismantling job in Melting shop of the Indian Iron and Steel Company (Respondent No. 1) which is a Government of India undertaking. Each of the petitioners was appointed individually by the contractor. In 1982 the respondent No. 1 terminated the contract of the contractor. The labourers of the contractor however continued to work directly under the management of the respondent No. 1. With the abolition of the contract system the respondent No. 1 introduced the system of direct payment to the petitioners who were earlier working as contract labourers under the contractor. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondent company is maintaining attendance registers and the petitioners are giving their attendance under the direct supervision of the company and the company is maintaining records of provident fund and the other facilities of the petitioners and the services rendered by the petitioners are entered into Master Roll Register. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the abolition of the contract system and the introduction of direct payment system brought about a basic qualitative change in the relationship between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioners who are engaged for dismantling job in Melting shop and that the disappearance of the intermediary contractor have brought about a direct relationship of master and servant between the respondent No.1 and the petitioners. It is however the grievance of the petitioners that in spite of the fact that direct relationship of master and servant has come into existence between the respondent No.1 and the petitioners after the disappearance of the intermediary contractor the petitioners are being paid by the respondent No. 1 at the rate of the Contract labour wages which is very low and far less than the salary and allowances paid to the other workmen employed by the respondent No. 1. The petitioners claim that they are entitled to have the same wage structure as is available to the departmentalised workers of the respondent No. 1. They claim wage structure at par with the departmentalised workers employed by the respondent No.1 and other consequential benefits of service retrospectively with effect from 20th October, 1982 on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
(2.) According to the petitioners the dismantling job in the Melting shop is of perennial nature as this job is carried out as per shut down programme of the furnaces and this job is continuous in nature as throughout the year the progressive shut down maintenances of the Melting shop furnaces are carried out. It is on the other hand the contention of the respondent that the job of the petitioners was intermittent in nature and such job was required to be done only when steel Melting shop furnaces were brought down for repairs. In their affidavit-in-reply, it is however denied by the petitioners that their job was intermittent in nature. It is stated in paragraph-9 of the affidavit-in-reply that there are six furnaces in the Melting shop and at least three furnaces are required to be kept in working condition and as such furnaces are brought down alternately for repairs and the petitioners are engaged for repairing purposes throughout the year. In paragraph-9 of the affidavit-in-opposition it is stated on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that initially when the petitioners were working under the contractor they used to get certain incentives from the contractor for completion of the job in time, but when the system of direct payment was started the said incentive was stopped and in lieu thereof they were given wages for the entire month and during the idle period when the job of dismantling was not necessary the petitioners were also being engaged on some other jobs as per necessity of the concerned department. It is also stated in the said paragraph that the attendance is maintained by the department in view of the fact that payment is made to the petitioners by the department directly. It is the contention of the respondent No. 1 that the petitioners being basically labourers under the contractor may claim equal treatment with the contractors' labourers in other departments, but not with the regular employees whose service conditions are totally different.
(3.) By a notification dated the 27th September, 1979 published in the Calcutta Gazette on the 11th October, 1979 the Government of West Bengal in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 prohibited employment of contract labour in certain spheres in the establishment of the Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. The particular job of the petitioners was however not included in the said notification and it is the contention of the respondent No. 1 that the said fact shows that the job which the petitioners had been doing was not perennial in nature. This aspect of the matter however is not of much moment in the present context.;