- (1.) THE corporation, as petitioner, is questioning the order of the central government dated February 2, 2005 referring an existing industrial dispute to the Central Government industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, kolkata. The schedule to the order of reference reads as follows: "whether the seven casual workmen viz. S/sri Ashrumoy Dutta, Gowtam Roy, manoranjan Haider, Buddadeb Das, Suraj das, Jayadev Pal and Kajal Das who are working at Aviation Fuel Station (of Indian oil Corporation Ltd. , Marketing Division) at nsc Bose International Airport, Kolkata, continuously since March 17, 1992 entitled for regularization into the services of IOCL (MD) or not? In case they are entitled for regularization, from which date and in which pay-scale/grade they should be regularized? whether the action of the management of ioc Ltd. (MD) in continuing these seven workmen on casual basis since March 17, 1992 is justified? If not, to what relief these workmen are entitled?"
(2.) ADMITTEDLY, at one point of time the second to eighth respondents were engaged in connection with certain works of the corporation as contract labours. In a meeting held on March 17, 1992 a decision was taken that the contractors workers deployed by the management of the corporation, for the jobs indicated in the minutes of the meeting, at calcutta AFS would be paid by the corporation on daily wage basis. Proceedings were initiated under provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. By a decision taken in August 2003 (that was taken in terms of an order of this Court dated January 17, 2001 made in W. P. No. 17712 of 1999 filed by the second to eighth respondents), the central advisory contract labour board held that since the second to eighth respondents had ceased to be contract labours and the corporation had directly engaged them, there was no scope to make any order prohibiting employment of contract labours. Thereupon the second to eighth respondents wanted the corporation to absorb them on regular basis, and since the corporation declined to oblige them, they approached the conciliation officer under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(3.) BEFORE the conciliation officer they claimed that having worked as casual workmen they had become entitled to be absorbed in the establishment of the corporation on regular basis. Their claim was contested by the corporation by submitting written objections dated April 8, 2004 and July 15, 2004. In its written objections the corporation specifically stated that the second to eighth respondents were, if at all, contract labours, but not casual labourers or workers of the corporation. Raising the objection the corporation took the plea that there was no reason or scope to appoint them in its establishment on regular basis. The conciliation officer submitted his failure report dated November 1/5, 2004. The failure report, accompanied by the representation of the second to eighth respondents raising the dispute, minutes of the conciliation proceedings dated September 30, 2004, objection letters of the corporation dated april 8, 2004 and July 15, 2004, and the letters of the union espousing the cause of the second to eighth respondents, however, did not reflect the case of the corporation made out in its written objections filed before the conciliation officer. In the failure report it was not mentioned that according to the corporation the persons submitting the representation raising the dispute were only contract labours, and not casual labourers or workers. On the basis of the failure report, the central government, as the appropriate government with respect to the corporation, made the impugned order of reference.;