Regularization of Contract Labourers - Award by Labour Tribunal Guntur - Since the Tribunal not consider the various facts & law and has to consider the latest developments - their lordships, therefore, partly allowed the writ appeal by modifying the order of the learned Single Judge and thereby, the award of the Labour Court to the effect that, (a) the reference made at the instance of the respondent shall be treated as unworkable since there is no uniformity in the conditions of appointment or nature of grievances of the employees, represented by it; (b) as regards such of the employees whose (i) services were regularised by the management or (ii) settled by payment of lumpsum amount or compensation, the I.D shall stand rejected; and (c) in case, any individual employees have any grievance about the retrenchment or discontinuance from service, it shall be open to them to raise individual disputes under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D. - 2015 Telangana & A.P.(2014) msklawreports



 the appellants have
established LPG Filling Plant at Tadepalli, Guntur District and
another Plant at Kondapalli, Krishna District.  Different
categories of workers are engaged to carry out the functions in
the respective Plants.  
The union of the workers at Tadepalli
Plant approached the Government with a request to refer an
Industrial Dispute to the Labour Court, Guntur in relation to the
regularization of services of 52 workmen. 
 It was pleaded that
the workmen were being engaged as Contract Labour in  
contravention of the provisions of the Contract Labour
(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (for short the Act) and in
that view of the matter, the appellants herein need to be treated
as principal employer. 

 The Government referred the dispute under Section
10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short the I.D. Act) to
the Labour Court, Guntur.
 After contest by the parties, the
Labour Court passed an award dated 26.09.2001 holding that
the demand for regularization of services of claimant Nos.10 to
24 and 26 to 47 is justified and that they are entitled for
regularization from the date of their engagement either directly
or through labour contractor.
 A direction was also issued for
regularization of their services by absorbing them against the
posts in the appellant-corporation within six months.

 Whether the demand of the General Secretary, LPG  
Filling Plant Workers and Muttah Union and the General
Secretary, Coastal District Petroleum Products Workers
Union, Tadepalli, for regularization of services of 52
following workmen before the management of LPG Filling 
Plant, Tadepalli is justified? If so, to what relief the
workmen are entitled?

 The appellants admitted that out of 52 persons, as regards
whom, the relief was claimed, persons at serial Nos. 1 to 9 are
permanent employees at Kondapally, claimant Nos.10, 11, 12
19,21,23.,26,43, 46 and 47 are contract labour and claimant
Nos.28, 29, 30,31,32,34,37,38,39 and 41 are muttah workers.
It was further mentioned that claimant Nos.13 to 19, 22, 23 and
27 have already settled their claims before the Assistant
Commissioner of Labour.  In the course of discussion, it emerged
that claimants at serial Nos.22 to 27 are casual labour and 36 to
44 are transport workers.  
A semblance of comparison of duties
was also undertaken.  
On the ground that the appellants
themselves admitted that they have engaged claimants 10 to 47,
but failed to prove that those persons were employed through
labour contractor, the relief of regularization was granted, of
course, by undertaking further classification of those workers,
depending upon the nature of duties and method of
engagement.
Due to compromise with some of the workers, the single judge dismissed the writ.
Hence this writ appeal by others.

 We are of the view that the matter needed a totally
different approach.  The Labour Court was under obligation to
take into account, the developments that have taken place so far,
namely, the amicable settlement arrived at between the parties
or regularisation of services of employees, if any, and to
concentrate only on such of the employees who still have any
grievance, than to treat the problem, as that of the respondent-
union, in general.

We, therefore, partly allow the writ appeal by modifying
the order of the learned Single Judge and thereby, the award of
the Labour Court to the effect that,
(a)     the reference made at the instance of the respondent
shall be treated as unworkable since there is no
uniformity in the conditions of appointment or nature
of grievances of the employees, represented by it;
(b)     as regards such of the employees whose (i) services
were regularised by the management or (ii) settled by
payment of lumpsum amount or compensation, the I.D
shall stand rejected; and
(c)     in case, any individual employees have any grievance
about the retrenchment or discontinuance from
service, it shall be open to them to raise individual
disputes under Section 2-A(2) of the I.D.Act.- 2015 Telangana & A.P.(2014) msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more