Ruma Pal, J. - (1.) The petitioners claim to be working as piece rated contract/handling labour and casual labour at the Food Storage Depot, Balarampur, Purulia of the Food Corporation of India (referred to as FCI). The petitioners have claimed regularisation and absorption under the Food Corporation of India. They have also claimed the benefits of the direct payment system introduced by the FCI in connection with certain of the FCI's Godowns.
(2.) The first claim of the petitioner is under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (referred to as the Act). The petitioners say that they have been working as casual labour under the FCI for the last 16 years. It is said that the need : of the FCI which was fulfilled by the petitioners was perennial in nature and was necessary for the work of the FCI. It is claimed that the Appropriate Government should have, in the circumstances, issued a notification under Section 10 of Act: prohibiting the employment of contract labour in FCI's establishment. It is submitted that this court should direct the issuance of such a notification and until the Appropriate Government issued such a notification, the status-quo should be continued with regard to the petitioners employment under the FCI. The petitioners have relied upon the several decisions in this context which will be considered later in this judgment.
(3.) It is also submitted by the petitioners that they had been employed as casual labour with the FCI since 1976 under different contractors and that they had a right to be absorbed as permanent employees of FCI. The FCI had issued tender notice on May 18, 1993 seeking to appoint a handling-cum-transport contractor in respect of the Food Supply Depot at Balarampur. It is stated that by seeking to appoint a new contractor the petitioner's legitimate expectation for continuance in their employment would be taken away. It is said that the petitioners had made a representation in February 1993 to the respondent authorities asking for absorption with FCI and for implementation of the direct payment system until such absorption. According to the petitioners, the respondent authorities inspite of the receipt of the representation did not reply to the same.;