Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Regularisation of Security Guards as Direct Employees Due to Non-Prosecution. Contract Labour Abolition Notification Under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1971 Not Enforced as Petitioners Failed to Appear.

High Court: Bombay High Court
  • 115
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a writ petition filed by 14 security guards employed with Videsh Sanchar Nigam (VSNL), a statutory corporation, seeking to be treated as direct employees of VSNL rather than contract labour. The petitioners relied on a notification dated December 9, 1976 (SO No.779(E)) issued under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1971, which prohibited employment of contract labour for sweeping, cleaning, dusting, and watching buildings owned or occupied by establishments where the appropriate government was the Central Government. The petitioners contended that VSNL was prohibited from employing contract labour for watching its buildings and thus they should be absorbed as direct employees. The petition was filed in 1992. On the date of hearing, none appeared for the petitioners, while counsel for respondent No.1 (VSNL) was present. The court noted that the case was founded on the notification and that the petitioners had made a statement in paragraph 7 of the writ petition regarding the notification. However, due to the absence of the petitioners and their counsel, the court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution. The court did not adjudicate on the merits of the claim.

Headnote

A) Contract Labour - Abolition of Contract Labour - Notification SO No.779(E) dated December 9, 1976 - Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1971 - Petitioners, security guards employed through contractor, sought regularisation as direct employees of Videsh Sanchar Nigam based on notification prohibiting contract labour for watching buildings. Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution as none appeared for petitioners. Held that the petition is dismissed for default (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to be treated as direct employees of respondent No.1 based on the notification prohibiting contract labour for watching buildings.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution as none appeared for the petitioners.

Law Points

  • Non-prosecution of writ petition
  • Dismissal for default
  • Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act
  • 1971
  • Notification prohibiting contract labour for watching buildings
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 260

Writ Petition No.2771 of 1992

2005-08-05

R.M. Lodha, J.P. Devadhar

Mr. K.J. Presswala i/b Mulla & Mulla for respondent No.1

K.V. Kadam, K.B. Singh, M.W. Dubhale, H.B. Hatekar, M.D. Patil, J.P. Mishra, J.K. Alande, S.K. Dhumal, A.G. Kangane, J.T. Jadhav, A.B. Vharkat, B.A. Mapkar, P.Y. Desai, S.K. Kundavale

Videsh Sanchar Nigam, Security Guards Board for Greater Bombay & Thane, Union of India

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking regularisation of contract labour as direct employees based on a notification prohibiting contract labour for watching buildings.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought to be treated as direct employees of respondent No.1 (Videsh Sanchar Nigam) and not as contract labour.

Filing Reason

Petitioners claimed that a notification dated December 9, 1976 prohibited employment of contract labour for watching buildings, and they were employed as security guards for watching the building owned by respondent No.1.

Issues

Whether the petitioners are entitled to be treated as direct employees of respondent No.1 based on the notification prohibiting contract labour for watching buildings.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners submitted that the notification prohibited respondent No.1 from employing contract labour for watching buildings, and thus they should be absorbed as direct employees.

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the petition for default due to non-appearance of the petitioners, without adjudicating on merits.

Judgment Excerpts

None appears for the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is founded on the Notification bearing SO No.779(E) dated December 9, 1976. In the absence of the petitioners and their counsel, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Procedural History

The writ petition was filed in 1992. On the date of hearing (August 5, 2005), none appeared for the petitioners. The court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.

Acts & Sections

  • Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1971:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Regularisation of Security Guards as Direct Employees Due to Non-Prosecution. Contract Labour Abolition Notification Under Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1971 Not Enforced as Petitioner...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Grants Divorce on Grounds of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage. Landmark Decision Sets Precedent for Dissolution of Marriage in Complex Cases