Swatantra Private Security Sibbandi Sangham Vs. Regional Manager, Globe Detective Agency (P) Limited - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service - abolition of contract labour - section 10 (1) of contract labour (regulation and abolition) act, 1970 - writ appeal against order of single judge dismissing writ seeking abolition of contract labour and regularisation in service - notification under section 10 abolishing contract labour in respondent hindustan petroleum corporation limited quashed by supreme court - relief sought cannot be granted. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. teacher employed in the school run by cantonment board being covered under rule 2 (f) of the cantonment fund servants rules, 1937 can file appeal under rules 13, 14 and 15 to authorities provided therein against any order imposing any penalties etc. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah. lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. -- maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, 1978 [act no. 3/1978]. sections 9 & 2(21): jurisdiction of school tribunal whether a school run by cantonment board is not a recognised school within the meaning of section 2(21)? - held, the act is enacted to regulate recruitments and conditions of employees in certain private schools and provisions of the act shall apply to all private schools in the state whether receiving any grant-in-aid from the state government or not. private school is defined in section 2(2) of the act as a recognised school established or administered by a management other than the government or a local authority. recognised means recognised by director, the divisional board or state board. thus as far as the first part of the definition of being recognised is concerned, it includes, as stated above, four directors, the divisional boards and four state boards. the second part of this definition which comes after the comma refers to any officer authorised by director or by any of such boards. the question to be examined is whether school run by the cantonment board could be said to be one run by any such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such boards. the term such is defined in oxford dictionary as of the kind or degree indicated or implied by the context. therefore, the term such board will have to mean a divisional board of or the level of divisional board or the state board. the divisional board holds the examination and issues certificates after 10th and 12th standard examinations. the state board advises the state government on policy matters, ensures uniform pattern of secondary and higher secondary education, lays down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the reasons state above, the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - , on par with the security staff at the terminals like kandala, shakur basti depot (delhi), buz-buz (calcutta), who are being treated as the employees of hindustan petroleum corporation ltd. , on par with the security staff at the terminals like kandala, shakur basti depot (delhi), buz-buz (calcutta) and grant appropriate pay scales to the petitioner security staff mentioned in the annexure on par with the regular employees of the corporation from the date of their respective appointment with all consequential benefits .2. the learned single judge having opined that what is essentially sought in the writ petition was absorption of the contract labour and regularization of their services in the service of the respondent-corporation, declined to grant the relief placing reliance on the judgments of the apex court in catering cleaners of southern railway v. 3. it is well settled that a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india is not maintainable wherein the prayer of the applicant is for abolition of the contract labour.s.r. nayak, j.1. this writ appeal should not detain us any long. the appellant is the swatantra private security sibbandisangham represented by its general secretary, visakhapatnam, and it filed writ petition no. 8334 of 1996 praying for the following relief:'.................. to issue an order, direction or a writ more particularly a writ in the nature of 'mandamus' declaring (i) the appointment of contractor for the purpose of security staff for watch and ward at hindustan petroleum corporation ltd., at visakha terminal, malkapuram, visakhapatnam as illegal and arbitrary (ii) declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not treating the petitioner security staff mentioned in the annexure as the employees of the hindustan petroleum corporation ltd., on par with the security staff at the terminals like kandala, shakur basti depot (delhi), buz-buz (calcutta), who are being treated as the employees of hindustan petroleum corporation ltd., by the respondents 2 and 3 as illegal and arbitrary and violative of article 21 of the constitution of india and consequently (iii) direct the respondents 2 and 3 to treat the petitioner security staff mentioned in the annexure as the employees of hindustan petroleum corporation ltd., on par with the security staff at the terminals like kandala, shakur basti depot (delhi), buz-buz (calcutta) and grant appropriate pay scales to the petitioner security staff mentioned in the annexure on par with the regular employees of the corporation from the date of their respective appointment with all consequential benefits .....'2. the learned single judge having opined that what is essentially sought in the writ petition was absorption of the contract labour and regularization of their services in the service of the respondent-corporation, declined to grant the relief placing reliance on the judgments of the apex court in catering cleaners of southern railway v. union of india, 1987 (1) llj 345, standard vacuum refining co. of india ltd. v. its workmen, 1960 (2) llj 233, and dena nath and ors. v. national fertilizers limited and ors., 1992 (1) llj 289. the view taken by the learned judge is unexceptionable.3. it is well settled that a writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india is not maintainable wherein the prayer of the applicant is for abolition of the contract labour. it appears that when this writ petition was instituted in this court, the government of india, which is the 'appropriate government' for the purpose of section 2(a) of the contract labour (regulation and abolition) act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') had issued a notification under sub-section (1) of section 10 of the act on 9-12-1976 abolishing the contract labour in the respondent-corporation. however, it needs to be noticed at this stage itself that the validity of the said notification was called in question and ultimately, the matter landed before the apex court in steel authority of india limited and ors. v. national union water front workers and ors., : (2001)iillj1087sc and the supreme court quashed the said notification. the resultant position is that the contract labour in the respondent-corporation is not abolished.4. however, the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner at the time of hearing brought to our notice that as permitted by the learned single judge an application/petition was presented to the chief labour commissioner (central) - 4th respondent herein - on 2-1-1998 followed by another representation dated 5-1-2000 seeking abolition of the contract labour in the respondent-corporation and in that view of the matter, it is just and appropriate to maintain the status-quo till the 4th respondent takes a decision on the representations of the appellant-writ petitioner's sangham. what is essentially sought in the writ petition is for mandamus to abolish the contract labour in the respondent-corporation and to regularize the services of the members ofthe appellant-sangham. the said relief cannot be granted for the simple reason that the contract labour in the respondent-corporation is not abolished and the notification issued by the government of india under section 10(1) of the act is quashed in steel authority of india limited and others case (supra). simply because subsequently, the appellant's sangham has made representations to the 4th respondent, that fact itself would not vest any enforceable legal right either in the appellant's sangham or its members to seek mandamus that the respondent-corporation should continue their services till a decision is taken on their representations. suffice it to state that there is no privity of contract and no relationship of employer and the employee between the respondent-corporation and the appellant's sangham and its members. unless contract labour is abolished in pursuance of the representations made by the appellant-sangham, issuance of any direction to the respondent-corporation either to abolish the contract labour or to absorb the services of the members of the appellant-sangham would not arise. it is also pertinent to notice that the chief labour commissioner (central) 4th respondent herein - cannot be regarded as the lawful representative to represent the government of india for the purpose of sub-section (1) of section 10 of the act. nothing is placed before us that even an appropriate application/representation was made to a lawful authority in the government of india.5. in the result, we do not find any substantive or weighty reasons to interfere with the order of the learned single judge impugned in the writ appeal. the writ appeal is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed, but with no order as to costs.