- (1.) This writ petition is filed by the Labour-Union of Respondent No.2-Mill. The prayer of the petitioner is as under:16.) (a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to terminate the services of the labour/workers who are members of the petitioner union and working for number of years in the Mill. (b) A writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from employing workers through Contractor; (c) Any other writ, order of direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, be also issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Records of the Respondents be summoned: (d) Service of advance notices be dispensed with; (e) Filing of certified/original copies of the Annexures P-l to P-4 may kindly be dispensed with: and (f) The writ petition may kindly be accepted with costs, throughout."
(2.) The main prayer is, therefore, regarding restraining the respondent-mill from terminating the services of the labour/workers who are members of the petitioner-Union and are working for number of years in the Mill and for, prohibition of employment of the contract labour. The petitioner has mentioned that it is a registered Union representing 900 casual workers, working in the Mill. They contended that they are working with the respondent- Mill for 14 years. Certain number of workers remained in job on regular basis as their services are required throughout the year and they have been made permanent. The workers have been working for about last 15 years on the maximum side and 4 years on minimum side with the respondent-Mill. The workers have been classified as under: 1. Permanent 2. General 3. Temporary 4. Apprentice 5. Probationers 6. Substitutes
(3.) It is contended that the season of respondent, being in the process of production of sugar, starts in the month of November and continues till the end of April in the following year. The workers employed by the respondent are termed as casual labour. The petitioner contends, that this definition is not applicable to the workers because they have not been employed for one crushing season but have been in service for more than a decade. It is also contended that some time even the services of workmen were retained much after the end of the crushing season and requisitioned much prior to the crushing season obviously for various reasons for doing ancillary work. It is contended that the respondent is deviating from the settled policy and had started employing casual workers from open market through contractors. It is contended that this act of the respondent is against the Prohibition of contract labour as per Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "Contract Labour Abolition Act")- It is further contended that respondent No. 3 is a very influential person and got members of the Union forcibly removed from the Mill premises when they had gone to join duty on January 18, 2000 and got the President of the petitioner-Union arrested and his whereabouts are not known and a Habeas Corpus Petition No. 390 of 2000 is filed in this Court and the action is to deter the petitioner union from pursuing the interest of the members.;