Karnataka High Court Temporarily Stays BEML's Group-C Recruitment Notification Over Contractual Workers Seeking Regularisation Of Employment

The Karnataka High Court has kept in abeyance a recruitment notification issued by the Bharat Earth Movers Limited (BEML) dated 27.09.2023 calling for recruitment to the Group-C position.

A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha said “This Court feels it appropriate in the peculiar facts and circumstances to keep the impugned notification (dated 27-09-2023) in abeyance for a period of one month from today.”

Further, it has directed BEML Limited to consider the cases of contract employees for employment under the notification.

It said “If the contract workers are qualified and have been performing satisfactorily, there may be concerns of fairness in not offering them the opportunity to apply for these positions. If there are genuine reasons to fill the Group-C positions with external candidates due to skill gaps or other valid reasons, this could be a legitimate justification, ignoring the rights of the contract workers who may be entitled to regularisation. It would be prudent for the employer to review the status of the contract workers, assess their eligibility for regulations, and ensure that the recruitment process of group-C positions is conducted in a manner, i.e., fair and transparent.”

The Union of contract workers had approached the court challenging the notification and also seeking regularisation of their employment.

It was claimed that BEML has employed only around 450 permanent workmen and has engaged around 1800 workmen as contract workmen, even though they are working in the permanent and perennial nature of work and performing the same work as regular workmen employed in such posts.

Further, it was stated that many of these workmen have been working continuously for more than 20 years and the majority of the petitioners-workmen are ITI qualified and have completed National Apprentice Certificate and the impugned notification deprives them of their legitimate expectation for getting regularised with their service.

It was claimed that the action of BEML is in violation of Articles 14 and 19 of the constitution.

The government undertaking opposed the plea saying that whether the contract labour should be abolished or not was within the exclusive domain of the appropriate Government and it is only the appropriate Government who can issue a notification prohibiting the employment of the contract labour.

Moreover, it was stated that the factors enumerated in Sub-Section 2 of Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 were satisfied and the petitioners, instead of approaching the authority constituted under the CLRA Act had attempted to have a back door entry to the Contract Labour Arrangement at the respondent No.2- company.

Since the petitioners are employees of the Labour Contractor and as such, there is no master and servant relationship between the petitioners and BEML, it was argued.

Findings:

The bench noted that the CLRA Act was introduced to regulate the employment of contract labour in certain establishments and provide for its abolition in certain circumstances.

Considering the prayer seeking regularisation the court said, “They may have a legal claim to regularisation under the Labour Laws, but the jurisdiction of this Court under 226 seeking for regularisation by the contract workers, was working under the principal employer or were under the contractors and whether there was an relationship of employer and the employee is essentially a question of fact, the remedy to the petitioner is to approach the industrial tribunal for declaring either the contract labour system under which they had employed was camouflage and that they are direct employees of the respondent No.2 and for consequential relief.”

It added that the appropriate remedy is to approach the industrial tribunal as the Court had no jurisdiction to absolve the petitioners by regularisation on the ground that the work for which the petitioners were engaged as contract labour was perennial in nature, and the said question would be answered on determination of a several number of factors.

Accordingly, the court disposed of the matter.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi for Advocate L Muralidhar Peshwa for Petitioners

CGC Shivakumar for R-1.

Advocate Prashanth B.K for R-2

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 287

Case Title: WORKMEN OF BEML LTD & Others AND Union of India & ANR

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.573/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order