contract labour who was working in an establishment for the last ten years demanded for making them permanent.

 

Some contract labour who was working in an establishment for the last ten years demanded for making them permanent. The management contended that they are doing casual or seasonal work. Decide.

Issue:

1. Whether the demand of contract labor is valid? NO

2. Whether the contention of management is tenable? YES

Rule:

Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970).

Application:

This problem is related to the Regularization of contract labour. Contract laborers do not receive the same security and dignity of labour as the regular workmen.

Nitinkumar Nathalal Joshi v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., (2002) 3 SCC 433, According to appellent workmen, they were employed on contract labour with the first Respondent-Principal employer, namely, oil&Natural Gas Corporation Limited. Consequent upon the Govt.Notification, the contract labour in the posts of Boiler Operators, Attendants, Helpers and Peons was prohibited and these appellants claimed that they should be treated as the employees of the first respondent.

It has been held that neither Section 10 of the Act, 1970 does not provide for automatic absorption of contract labour. Consequently, the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the establishment concerned.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. K.V. Shramik Sangh, (2002) 4 SCC 609, it has been help that absorption of conrtact laborers cannot be automatic and it is not for the Court to give such direction.

Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Union of India, 2006 III LLJ 1037 (SC), it has been held that neither the labour Court nor the writ Court could determine the question whether the contract labour should be abolished or not. The direction by the High Court to refer dispute regarding claim of contract workers for absorption as regular employees of principal employer was held untenable by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:

In the instant problem, the demand of contract labor is not valid. The contention of the managemennt is tenable. Hence the contract labourers are not entitled for permanency.