- (1.) Heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties. Facts of the instant case, briefly, are that the petitioners were engaged in the respondent No. 1 company at its Kulty Works in the Town Engineering Department in 1978 and the petitioners have been discharging their duties as Fitters, Mistri, Carpenter and Painter etc. and that such duties were permanent in nature. The petitioners' case is that the respondent No. 1 was not giving similar benefit to the petitioners like the permanent employees and the petitioners wanted to have their services regularised since the respondent No. 1 has the practice of engaging contractors in various areas for making payment to the employees of the company where works are permanent in nature. The petitioners filed a writ petition in this Court in the year 1993 being C.R. No. 12477 (W) of 1993 and by order dated 28.3.2000 an Hon'ble Single Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition wherein it was recorded inter alia that the petitioners who are rendering services continuously over 10 years as contract labourers without any interruption sought for direct appointment by the respondent employer and having been denied the said writ petition was filed. His Lordship was also pleased to observe that even if it is assumed that the services of the writ petitioners are perennial in nature, that ipso facto does not create any right in favour of the petitioners for being engaged or appointed by the principle employer. But in the event steps are taken under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 to prohibit by appropriate notification, employment of contract labourers in the process of operation of other work in the establishment of the respondent employer then of course, contract labourers who had been discharging such prohibited functions may be deemed to have acquired right to get direct employment from the respondent employer but until such time prohibition is made by the notification in the Official Gazette no such right accrues. His Lordship was pleased to dispose of the writ petition with the following observation: "I grant liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Government within a period of one month from today with a request to refer their case to the committee for the purpose of investigation whether the employment given to the petitioners is liable to the prohibited in terms of the provisions contained in section 10 of the said Act. In the event the petitioners so approach the appropriate Government, the appropriate Government shall within one month's time decide whether to refer the matter to the committee or not to refer the same. Until two months from today and until the report is submitted by the committee to the appropriate Government, in the event the appropriate Government decides to refer the matter to the appropriate committee, the respondent employer shall not engage any one to do the jobs which are being rendered by the petitioners in their replacement except by their permanent employees."
(2.) It appears from Annexure P-3 [a letter dated 26.09.2001 addressed by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour to the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Calcutta] to the writ petition that a representation dated 15.05.2000 was made by the petitioners wherein the petitioners had requested for regularisation of their services in the respondent No. 1 company and the petitioner took the stand that they have completed 240 days of working in perennial nature of job. It appears from the said Annexure P-3 that in the petitioners representation no indication was given regarding the name cf job performed by the petitioners and no request was made for abolition of contract labour system in the job in which they were working and the appropriate Government under the said Act of 1970 has no powers to direct absorption of the contract labour in the establishment of the principal Employer and that it was for the respondent No. 1 to consider their case for direct absorption. It further appears that another representation dated 28.09.2000 was made by the petitioners wherein the petitioners made a request for abolition of contract labour in certain jobs in the Town Engineering Department and township and another representation dated 07.12.2000 was also on similar lines. It further appears from the said Annexure P-3 that the representation of the petitioners was forwarded to the State Government for appropriate action at their end.
(3.) It also appears that another writ petition being W.P. No. 12836(W) of 2001 was filed by the writ petitioners and by order dated 05.10.2001 an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition by observing inter alia that "As the matter is pending before the appropriate authority, no interference is being made on the writ petition and I hope and I trust that the matter will be decided by the appropriate authority in accordance with law expeditiously".;