Delhi High Court
Dharamvir Singh & Anr vs The Executive Engineer (E) & Ors on 25 August, 2014
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 25th August, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 5390/2014
DHARAMVIR SINGH & ANR ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr. Rishi Jain, Adv.
versus
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (E) & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Vikram Jetly, CGSC
for R1and R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Notice issued.
2. Ld. Counsel named above accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
3. With the consent of the counsels of the parties, instant petition is
taken up for final disposal.
4. Vide the present petition, petitioners are seeking direction to
respondent no. 2, Ministry of Labour and Employment to refer the Industrial
Dispute between the Management of CPWD and the petitioners to the
Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court to adjudicate the dispute between
them.
5. The petitioners were working under the Management of Executive
Engineer (Electric), Electrical Division-XI, CPWD, IARI, Pusa, New Delhi
through contractors w.e.f. 26.05.2003 and 06.01.2006 as Lift Operators at
the site of KAB-II, IARI, Pusa, New Delhi for attending 'Lifts' and its
maintenance.
6. Mr. Rishi Jain, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits that the petitioners are possessing with requisite qualification as per
the Recruitment Rules of CPWD. As per Recruitment Rules for the post of
Lift Operators, the workmen are entitled for regularization of their service in
the CPWD as they have completed 240 days of service in each calendar year
from the date of initial appointment.
7. It is averred in the petition that Labour Department, Govt. of NCT of
Delhi issued a notification to the extent that the contract labours, who are
performing work permanent and perennial in nature as has been performed
by the regular employees or directly employed by the principal employer,
are entitled for the same benefit at par with their regular counterparts.
8. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the concerned JE issued
duty chart on 19.05.2009 for the workmen and they continued to work up to
23.05.2009. Thereafter, they were forcibly evicted from the workplace by
the security man, which is illegal retrenchment on the part of the principal
employer.
9. Mr. Jain, Ld. Counsel submits that being aggrieved from the decision
of the respondent, the petitioners approached Ministry of Labour and
Employment, Govt. of India for conciliation. However, the Section Officer
of the said Ministry while dismissing the representation of the petitioners,
passed order as under:
"I am directed to refer to the Failure of Conciliation Report NO.
ALCII/8(31)/11 dated 13.08.2012 on the above mentioned subject and
to say that prima facie this Ministry does not consider this dispute fit
for adjudication for the following reasons:
"It is reported that in a similar case C.W.J. NO. 4918 of 2000
filed by Shri Guru Prasad Pandey and Others v. UOI and Ors.,
the Hon'ble High Court has dismissed the petition of the
applicant and in case of Secretary State of Karnataka vs. Uma
Devi & Ors., Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "there is
no fundamental right in those who have been employee on
daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim
that they have a right to be absorbed in service. In another
case also Apex Court has held that the persons employed on
contractual basis though worked for years together are not
entitled to any right to be absorbed or made permanent in
service."
Hence the matter raised by Shri Dharamvir Singh and Shri Vijay
Kumar cannot be considered for adjudication."
10. Ld. Counsel submits that the petitioners approached the Ministry of
Labour and Employment for re-conciliation. However, vide impugned order
dated 26.02.2014, their claim petitions have been dismissed without any
jurisdiction.
11. Whenever a dispute arises between the Management and the
workmen, procedure is either to go for conciliation before the Labour
Department or directly approach the Labour Court. If a workman
approached a Labour Department, then the said Authority has to proceed for
conciliation. In case the matter is settled between the parties then it is the
end of the matter. However, if no conciliation is arrived at between the
parties, then the said Authority is required to refer the matter to the Labour
Court.
12. In the present matter, Labour Department was to refer the matter to
the Labour Court, but decided the same against the petitioners on merit.
13. In view of the facts recorded above, I am of the considered opinion
that the decision taken by the Ministry of Labour and Employment vide
order dated 26.02.2014 is without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the same is
hereby quashed.
14. Consequently, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the Labour
Court directly for fresh adjudication of their claims.
15. I hereby make it clear that the Labour Court shall not dismiss the
claim of the petitioners on delay and latches.
16. Dasti.
SURESH KAIT, J
AUGUST 25, 2014
jg
