Trilok Singh Rawat & Ors vs Gee Vee Construction Ltd & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 3250 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                         W.P.(C) 2902/2012


+                                  Date of Decision: 15th May, 2012


#      TRILOK SINGH RAWAT & ORS              ....Petitioner
!                     Through: Ms. Asha Jain Madan &
                               Mr. Mukesh Jain, Advocates

                                 Versus

$      GEE VEE CONSTRUCTION
       LTD & ANR                                     ....Respondents
                                                     Through: None

       CORAM:
*      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN


                                 JUDGMENT

P.K.BHASIN, J: (ORAL)

1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The petitioners have filed this writ petition impugning the order of the Industrial Tribunal whereby their application for interim injunction restraining the two respondents herein from dispensing with their services during the pendency of the reference proceedings before it for the adjudication of their claim for the regularization of their services with respondent no. 1 herein ,was dismissed.

3. The petitioners' case is that they have been working for

respondent no. 1 for over two decades, though through the contract system adopted by the respondent no. 1 to deprive the workers of their legitimate dues. It is also their case that though contractors have been changing from time to time but they have been continuing to work at the premises of respondent no. 1 as security guards and since the petitioners were not being treated as direct employees of respondent no. 1 they raised an industrial dispute and the same is pending adjudication before the industrial Tribunal. During the pendency of those proceedings, the petitioners now feel apprehensive that their services would be terminated by respondent no. 1 by cancelling the contract of the present contractor and in that way they would be rendered jobless and without any source of livelihood even after having served the respondent no. 1 for over two decades. They thus sought interim relief from the industrial Tribunal but the same has been rejected vide impugned order dated 11 th April, 2012 on the ground that they, prima facie, had failed to show to be direct employees of respondent no. 1.

4. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition was filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not dispute that since the workers have already raised an industrial dispute regarding their demand of regularization/absorption by the respondent no. 1 and if at all during the pendency of the reference proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal any of the respondents decides to take any decision to dispense with the services of the workmen concerned they will have to take recourse to Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act and if

they do not do that the workmen would have legal remedies at that time. Respondent no. 1, in any event, as per the petitioners' own case is not claiming to be the petitioners' employer and so there is little likelihood of it taking any action for the termination of their services.

6. This writ petition being devoid of merit is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

P.K. BHASIN, J

MAY 15, 2012/pg