In the year 1981, the Phosphates Company Limited was incorporated as a joint venture between the Government of India and Rupublic of Nauru with the objective of manufacturing of Di-Ammonium Phosphates. Later on, in the y

CS Professional · Multidisciplinary Case Studies · PYQS · December 2021
In the year 1981, the Phosphates Company Limited was incorporated as a joint venture between the Government of India and Rupublic of Nauru with the objective of manufacturing of Di-Ammonium Phosphates. Later on, in the year 1993, the Republic of Nauru disinvested its entire equity stake to the Government of India and the company became a wholly-owned public sector undertaking of the Government of India having its corporate and registered office at Bhubaneswar. (Odisha) Due to deteriorating financial position of certain public sector units, the Government of India on 19.05.1998 decided to temporarily enhance the age of superannuation of all central public sector employees from 58 years to 60 years on the premise that the move may help industries to cut down their losses. Pursuant to the said order dated 19.05.1998, the Company implemented the said order vide order dated 19.11.1998 with retrospective effect from 27.05.1998. Inspite of the enhancement of age of superannuation, the financial performance of the company still did not improve. The Government of India issued an Office Memorandum dated 22.08.2001 to all central public undertakings including the said company intimating its decision to roll back the age of superannuation of all the employees of public sector undertakings from 60 years to 58 years. Before this Memorandum, the Government of India, on 08.06.2000, had also advised the company to review the decision on enhancement of age of superannuation but the company did not take any decision on the said advisory. In the meanwhile, the Government of India, on 28.02.2002, divested its 74% shareholding in the said company in favour of M/s Zuari Maroc Phosphates Ltd. ("Zuari"), thereby, keeping only 26% shareholding in its favour. As per the shareholding agreements, it was provided that all the decisions taken by the Board of directors of the company, prior to the date of the disinvestment, shall be binding on all concerned. In order to revive its financial health, the Board of directors of the Company decided to fill-up the vacancies of Security Guards by engaging an outsourcing agency. As many as 27 Security Guards were employed through outsourcing against vacant posts. In the month of April 2002, some robbers attacked in midnight with arms weapons. Five security guards who were on duty and safeguarding the property were injured. The robbers could not succeed in their nefarions designs. One security guard lost his hand during the firing and another security guard lost his eye. The Union of Security Guards moved an application for regularization of their jobs and also demanded the same pay scale as given to para-military forces under the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work. The Union also demanded compensation to injured security guards. The Company rejected their claim on the plea that they were contractual labour. As a consequence, the Union filed a petition. Thereafter, on 17.07.2002, the Company, by office order, withdrew the earlier office order dated 19.11.1998 and restored the age of superannuation to 58 years in respect of all the employees in terms of Certified Standing Orders and Service Rules of the Company. Being aggrieved, the Trade Union raised dispute with regard to the above and the Odisha Government also made a reference under Section 12 read with Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal. Can contractual workers, who were security guards in the company, raise the demand for permanent jobs in the company wholly-owned by the government even if no vacancy is advertised for the post?

Answer & Explanation:

The present case is similar to Chennai Port Trust vs. The Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Association & Ors the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Writ Court (Single Judge) and the Division Bench were right in their reasoning and the conclusion. The Division Bench, in our opinion, rightly relied upon the decision of this Court in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. & Anr. vs. Shramik Sena & Ors (1999) 6 SCC 439 and compared the facts of the above case with that of the case at hand and found great similarities in both for granting relief to the members of the respondent (Association). The Division Bench in Paras 14 and 15 of the impugned judgment took note of 20 factors of this case, which were found identical to the facts involved in Indian Petrochemical's case (supra) wherein this Court had issued a writ of mandamus against the main employer in relation to such employees working in the canteen run for the benefit of the employer. We find no fault in the aforementioned findings recorded by the Division Bench as, in our view, these findings were recorded on the basis of undisputed facts and documents on record of the case. That apart, these findings were recorded keeping in view the facts involved and law laid down by this Court in the case of Indian Petrochemicals (supra) Mere perusal of the decision rendered in the case of Indian Petrochemicals (supra) would go to show that in that case also, somewhat similar question, which is the subject matter of this appeal, had arisen at the instance of the employees working in canteen. This Court (Three Judge Bench) elaborately examined the question and took note of the relevant undisputed facts, which had bearing over the question, granted the reliefs to the employees concerned. In our considered opinion, the approach and the reasoning of the two Courts below (Writ Court and Division Bench) while deciding the writ petition and the appeal arising out of the writ petition keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Indian Petrochemicals (supra) is just, proper and legal. In other words, if on the undisputed facts, this Court has granted benefit to the canteen workers in the case of Indian Petrochemicals (supra) then there is no reason that on the same set of undisputed facts arising in this case, the Court should not grant the benefit to the employees/workers in this case. It is more so when no distinguishable facts are pointed out in this case qua Indian Petrochemical's case (supra). In light of above judgement, it could be held in given question too that contractual workers, who are security guards, are right in raising their demand for permanent jobs.

Topics: Industrial Law

Open in Interactive Practice Hub · Full Practice Hub · Chapter Weightage · More in this subject

Related Questions in this Topic