The Hindu : New Delhi News : Order on absorption of workers stayed

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Apr 11, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

New Delhi

New Delhi

Order on absorption of workers stayed

J. Venkatesan

“High Court judgment would entail a heavy burden on NLC”

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed a Madras High Court judgment upholding the directives issued by a single judge to the Neyveli Lignite Corporation to absorb more than 12,000 contract labourers employed in the mines.

A Bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishanan, Justice R.V. Raveendran and Justice M.K. Sharma, on a special leave petition filed by the NLC, stayed a February 16 judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the directions of the single judge.

Additional Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam, appearing for the NLC, said the High Court judgment would lead to creation of a large number of posts and would entail a heavy financial burden on the organisation.

The special leave petition said that in May 1995, the NLC management entered into a bi-partite agreement with a group of seven trade unions for absorbing the members of Indco Serve, one of the unions, in phases over five years, depending upon the qualification, time and nature of experience. The NLC absorbed 4,000 contract workers.

However, the trade unions approached the High Court demanding regularisation of the services of all the members based on seniority, including the period of service with private contractors. They also demanded payment of bonus for the past two years and recognition of Indco Serve by the management.

The petition said if the directions of the High Court were allowed to stand, the NLC would face a situation in which the absorption of the Indco Serve contract workers would be disturbed/delayed, leading to further complications. The NLC said the petition raised important questions of law: whether the High Court could go beyond the scope of the writ petition and give directions on absorption of labourers employed with private contractors; whether it was appropriate for the High Court to entertain the writ petition when conciliation proceedings were pending; and whether the respondent union ought to have raised the disputes before the industrial tribunal instead of pursing the writ petition.

The petition sought quashing of the High Court judgment and an interim stay of its operation.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

New Delhi