N T P C Vs. BADRI SINGH THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in these appeals and writ petition are to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. By a common order several Letters Patent Appeals were disposed of. The Letters Patent Appeals were filed by present respondents on the ground that they have been em ployed as Electricians since 1987 as workmen under Appellant No. 1 i.e. National Thermal Power Corporation (in short the Corporation) for maintenance of Korba Super Thermal Power Project colonies. Though the writ petitioners were not di rectly employed by the Corporation, but were employed through contractor. Prior to such engagement they were employed through other contractors. It was the stand in the writ petition that their work was supervised by competent officers of the Corpo ration and the materials for their job were Supplied by the Corporation and they worked for the colonies owned and controlled by the Corporation and series of con tracts have been entered into by the Corporation with the contractor. It was, there fore, their stand that they have to be treated as employees of the Corporation. It was stated that the Corporation wanted to avoid absorption of contract labour despite their perennial nature of work. With a view to frustrate mandate of this Court, they engaged them on job work basis and the whole endeavour was to defeat the absorp tion of the contract labours. It was claimed before the learned Single Judge that the M.P. Industrial Relation Act, 1960 (in short 1960 Act) governs the conditions of the employment between the Corporation and the contract labour and they were entitled to the same wages as the workmen of the Corporation and there can be abolition of the contract labour on regular basis.

(2.) Returns were filed by the Corporation. Stand of the Corporation was that it is a registered establishment under Section 7 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (in short the Act). The contractor who was impleaded as re spondent No.4 in the writ petitions was awarded the contract after inviting tenders. The contractor employed writ petitioners and there was no relationship of masters and servants between the Corporation and the writ petitioners. It was canvassed that the writ petitioners had initiated conciliation proceedings under the 1960 Act and once they have taken recourse to alternative remedy available to them under indus trial law they cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court. The contrac tor who was impleaded as respondent No. 4 Supplorted the stand of the Corporation and its functionaries. It was stated that it is a partnership firm and it had full control over the employees as the salaries were being paid by the firm. It was also stated that it had obtained a licence under Section 12 of the Act and was entitled to engage 75 workmen as per the said licence. It was pointed out that the writ petitioners were not permanent employees and their services last during the continuance of the contract and it had come to an end after the term of the contract had expired.

(3.) Before the learned Single Judge it was urged by the writ petitioners that the provisions of 1960 Act are applicable to the Corporation and inasmuch as in Item No.10 of the Notification dated 31-12-1960, there is a mention that the said Act is applicable to electricity generation and distribution in which the Corporation was engaged and was thus covered by all corners of the Statute.