- (1.) A canteen was being run by a contractor at Chandrapura Thermal Power Station, a unit of DVC, who had employed the appellants on different posts in between 1979 to 1993. In course of time, a tripartite settlement was arrived at on 18.08.1980 whereby it was agreed, that the benefit, which the canteen employees at Durgapur Thermal Power Station (DTPS) is getting, would be made available to the canteen employees at Chandrapura Thermal Power Station (CTPS). In the year 1997, the Government of West Bengal issued a notification under Section 10(1) of the Contractor Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 prohibiting the contract labour being employed for running canteen. Consequently, the services of the canteen employees running at DTPS were regularized. On account of that, the canteen employees at DTPS were getting certain benefits which were not available to the canteen employees at CTPS and, therefore, a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 3096 of 1999 was filed before this Court for a direction to the respondents to provide them the same facilities as is being given to the canteen employees of DTPS with an additional prayer to direct the authority to abolish the system of contract labour in the canteen of CTPS. That writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to move before the Central Government so that an appropriate decision be taken in the matter relating to abolition of contract labour in the canteen in terms of the provisions of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The appellants-petitioners pursuant to the order passed by this Court moved before the Central Government. Meanwhile a decision came in a case of Steel Authority of India Limited and others Vs. National Union Waterfront. Workers and others, 2001 7 SCC 1 holding therein that if the factory lies in the State Government, the appropriate Government would be the State Government. In that view of the matter, the Central Government referred the matter before the State Government. Before the State Government, all the parties did appear and the respondent-DVC took a stand there that since 27.3.1998 the canteen is being not run through a contractor rather it is being run through the existing employees on ad hoc manner under the supervision of the department of HRD of CTPS. In that event, the joint Labour Commissioner directed the management of the respondent-DVC to pay-wages of Group-D to the appellants-petitioners and to regularize their services within a period of two months. However, that decision was not implemented by the respondent-DVC on the premise that the State Government had no authority to direct to regularize the services of the appellants-petitioners on the disputed question of fact where the stand of the respondents was always there that they are the employees of the contractor, whereas on account of some reasons the canteen employees were taking stand that the management of DVC is the employer. In that event, the appellants-petitioners again moved to this Court vide W.P. (L) No. 5905 of 2010 seeking a direction on the respondents to treat them as permanent canteen employees of CTPS and also for quashing of the order passed by the respondent-DVC refusing to implement the order passed by the Labour Commissioner on the premise that the order passed by this Court in CWJC No. 3096 of 1999 to maintain status-quo is still operating.
(2.) The stand, which was taken on behalf of the appellants-petitioners, is that they are working under the management of DVC through the I1RD Department since 1998 and as such, they are entitled to similar pay as Croup--D employees under DIPS are getting and that for all practical purposes, the appellants-petitioners are the employees of CITS, as the provident fund deduction is being made by them and the salaries are being reimbursed by the respondent-DVC and that it is the DVC who has to exercise, discipline, control and supervise over them and that in view of the stand taken by the management before the Labour Commissioner that the canteen is being not run through the contractor, even a notification needs not to be issued under Section 10(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970.
(3.) On the other hand, the stand, which was taken on behalf of the respondent-DVC, is that the appellants-petitioners had been employed by the contractor but the contractor stopped the work from 27.3.1998 and since then the canteen is being run in an ad hoc manner through the existing employees under the supervision of HRD Department of CTPS.;