indian petrochemicals ltd

vs

shramik sena [1999-ii-llj-696-sc]

on abolition of contract canteen, are employees eligible to claim benefits under other statues enjoyed by the regular workmen of principal employer

-    on regularisation they are eligible only to claim status as workers under factories act

-      they would not enjoy equal status of regular workmen under other statutes and for purposes like seniority, promotion, recruitment benefits etc.

krishna panicker

vs

hmt [1999(4) lln 1079 hc-ker] or [2000 i llj 498]

a canteen contractor terminated the services of a cook and in the dispute that followed the government ordered the principal employer to be impleaded as a party

is this action of the government justified ?

the government order impleading the principal employer was not justified and the industrial tribunal advised to dispose of the dispute without impleading the principal employer

jaspal singh & others

vs

commercial officer airport authority of india [2000-i-llj 744 hc-del]

-    as per the 1976 notification there was a ban on deployment of contract labour on cleaning/sweeping and watching of buildings in central government establishments.

-    the airport authority had contracted out the task of managing and watching the customs confiscated goods godown

-    contractor’s employees who were deployed on this job claimed regularisation on the grounds that they were watching the customs building and came under the ban.

-    since the customs godown was inside a protected area and they were not patrolling the outer wall of the protected area, they are not doing the job of watching the buildings, but only doing job of watching the goods.

-      since they are not deployed in watching the building they cannot claim regularisation under the notification.

chandra mouli reddy

vs

member secretary, apseb (2000-I-llj 1175 HC-and]

     andhra government issued an order dated 23.09.96 under section 10(1) of the contract labour act banning 33 types of jobs

     this notification was published much after 23.09.96, can contract employees who joined the pool after 23.09.96 claim regularisation under this notification

-    high court held that only contract workers who WERE on the rolls on the DATE OF THE notification are eligible VIZ 23-09-1996 benefit under the notification.

subir kanjilal

vs

state of west bengal [1999(3) lln 988 hc-cal]

-    west bengal government issued a notification banning contract labour from a particular date

-    a contRACT employee was removed from the rolls a few days prior to this notification

-    is his claim for regularisation maintainable ?

     only contract employees on the rolls on the effective date of the 10(1) notification under the contract labour act  ONLY are eligible for absorption.

      {nOTE}

     THE aIR iNDIA CASE WAS STRUCK DOWN BY A 5 JUDGE CONSTITUTION BENCH IN THE STEEL AUTHORITY CASE DECIDED ON 30/8/2001}{sEE 2001 llr961)

(

f.c.i. bombay

vs

transport & dock workers union [1999-ii-llj 1389 sc]

-      central government had in 1976 banned certain jobs under the contract labour act while state governments had not banned such jobs.

-    the fci unions contended that the ‘appropriate government’ for the fci is the central government and hence the ban is applicable in view of the supreme court decision in the air india canse [1977-llj-113]

-    management took the state the all fci godowns are managed by state government and hence ban not applicable.

-      while one bench of the supreme court in air india case has held that fci should have central jurisdiction another supreme court bench in the hindustan aeronautics case [1075-ii-llj-336] and some other cases had held that fci would fall under state jurisdiction.

-    since there was a conflict among supreme court judgements, ordered that the issue be referred to a larger bench for a proper ruling on the issue