LexTAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES AND CONTRACT LABOUR UNION AND ORS. versus TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-~ TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD EMPLOYEES AND A CONTRACT LABOUR UNION AND ORS. v. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ORS. MAY 5, 1995 B [R.M. SAHA! AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] Contempt-Contract Labour-Electricity Board-Absoption-Recom- mendation of Khalid Commission-implementation of-Delay in-Absop- c tion proposed in phases-Extension of time for implementation-Directions regarding. The appellant-Union filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondent-Electricity Board has wilfully violated the recommendations .... made by the Khalid Commission and accepted by this Conrt regarding absorption of 18006 contract workers within the specified time schedule. D 4 The respondent-Board made a statement to absorb the employees in phases ' i.e. 436 workmen on or before 30.9.1995, 5500 workers on or before 31.3.1997 and the remaining 5506 workers on or before 31st March, 1999. It explained reasons for the delay and sought extension of time for implementation of the directions in stages as indicated before. E The appellant-Union opposed the extension of time and made a grievance that Board's absorption programme would leave about 2000 workers in the lnrch. However, the shortfall in various categories who would not be eligible for absorption i.e. those found common in more than F one list; those found unfit by the Selection Committee; those who remained absent at the time of scrutiny; and those who made erroneous claim was properly explained by the respondent-Board- The appellant-Union also requested for a forum to consider, if necessary, the cases of the workers ~. who were earlier found nnfit by the Selection Committee as well as one more opportunity before the Committee for 588 employees who earlier remained G absent at the time of scrutiny. • ~ Disposing the petition, this Court HELD : 1. Time is extended till 30.9.1995 to absorb/employ 436 workers and till 31.3.97 to absorb/employ 5500 workers more belonging to H 13 14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A groups other than I to V. All the rest whose number would be 5506 shall be employed/absorbed on or before 31st March, 1998. In doing so, the nµmber of group V workers would not be confined to 485 as mentioned in paragraph 104(5) of the repan, ·lf!i their number really is 1424, as given in paragraph 100. No further extension will be given in this regard and the B failure of the respondents to absorb all the remaining workers on or before 31st March, 1998 shall be taken to be an act of wilful disQbedience and they would suffer the consequences accordingly. [16-H, 17-A-B] 2. In case of the workers who were found unfit by the Selection Committee earlier, or who might be so fund hereinafter, a forum should C be made available to the petitioner-Union to be approached in case they were of the view that the workers in question were/are not really unfit. In this regard the decision of the concerned Commissioner of Labour shall be final and binding on all concerned. As regards 588 employees who remained absent at the time of scrntiny the respondent is directed to give D E F another opportunity to them to appear once again before the Selection Committee and then to act in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. [17-C, E, F] CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition No. 357/93 and I.A Nos. 13, 15 and 19. IN Special Leave Petition (C) No. 1820 of 1990. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.90 of the Madras High Court in W.P.No. 13886 of 1988. With Contempt Petition No. 354/93 in W.P. (C) No. 555/90. G Indira Jai Singh, F.S. Nariman, C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sudarsh Menon, Ms. Chandan Ramamurthi, P.H. Parekh, E.R. Kumar, A Mariarputham, Ms. Arona Mathur, K.V. Vishwanathan, Anil Aggarwal, M.A. Krishnan- murthy, K.V. Vijay Kumar, V. Balachandran, V.Krishnamurthy and R. Mohan for the appearing parties. H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by .-- ·- - ,_ • • ·"'·- • ·'· .... T.N. ELECTRIC BD. EMPLOYEES v. T.N. ELECTRICITY BD. [HANSARIA, J.] 15 HANSARIA, J. It is said that the wearer only knows where the shoe A pinches. This aspect has been highlighted by the counsel appearing for the contempt-petitioners by urging that the recommendations of the Khalid Commission requiring the respondents to recruit 18006 contract workers within the time schedule specified by the Commission has been observed more in violation than in compliance. They, therefore, submitted that the B respo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.