Kambli 1 wp1111.98 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1111 OF 1998 ... Bombay Telephone Canteen Employees’ Association ...Petitioner v/s. 1.Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. 2.The General Manager, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. 3.Union of India 4.The Regional Labour Commissioner ...Respondents ... Ms.N.D.Buch with Mr.S.K.More for the Petitioner. Ms.S.I.Shah i/b M/s.S.I.Shah for the Respondents Nos.1 & 2. ... CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & K.K.TATED, JJ DATED: 1st March, 2011 P.C.: 1. This petition has been filed by a trade-union Kambli 2 wp1111.98 representing workers who are working in the canteens run by the Respondent No.1-MTNL. The relevant facts are, initially Writ Petition No.2818 of 1991 was filed by the Petitioner before this court. In that writ petition, an interim order was passed on 11-2-1992. By that interim order, the Respondent No.1-MTNL was restrained from awarding contract to run canteens. Respondents Nos. 3 & 4 in that petition were directed to take steps to abolish contract labour in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. That order was challenged before the Supreme Court in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.9273/92. That Petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court by order dated 11-2-1992. It appears from the order that before the Supreme Court a statement was made on behalf of the M.T.N.L. ,that they have initiated steps to regularise the employees of the unregistered Canteens on the same basis as has been done for employees of the registered canteens earlier in point of time. The Supreme Court, therefore, observed that as M.T.N.L. Itself is taking steps to regularise the employees Kambli 3 wp1111.98 working in the canteens, the grievance of the Petitioner does not survive, and therefore, the S.L.P. was disposed of. Thereafter, Writ Petition No.2818 of 1991 was taken out for decision by the Division Bench of this Court. By order dated 11th March, 1996 the Respondent No.3 was directed to take final decision in relation to abolition of contract labour. It appears that, thereafter, notification was issued abolishing contract labour. Writ Petition No.2818 of 1991 was finally disposed of by order dated 2nd April, 1996. It was noted in the order that the contract labour has been abolished and therefore, the petition was disposed of. 2. It appears that thereafter a High Power Committee was appointed to look into the problem. Resolution No.8 was passed in the meeting of this High Power Committee dated 28-1-1998. In that Resolution it was noted that there are 17 canteens run on contract basis and now as a result of notification dated 4-2-1997 employment of contract labour has been prohibited in all the contract run canteens. Therefore, steps should be taken to create posts for running Kambli 4 wp1111.98 of the canteens on departmental basis. But nothing was done. Therefore this petition was filed, mainly for a direction to absorbe the members of the Petitioner who are working in canteens on temporary basis with the MTNL. 3. The case of the Petitioner is that, the members of the Petitioner have been working in the canteens of the Respondent No.1-MTNL for number of years on temporary basis and the Respondent No.1 despite statement made by them before the Supreme Court are not taking steps to regularise their services. 4. A stand was taken on behalf of the MTNL that after abolition of contract labour in 1997, MTNL is not running any canteen. It is purchasing ready made eatables from outside and making it available to its workers in the canteens. 5. An affidavit was filed on behalf of the Petitioner claiming that the canteens are still being run with the help of temporary employees who are members of the Petitioner. Kambli 5 wp1111.98 The Petitioner in support of its claim that the members of the Petitioner are being engaged on temporary basis produced documents in the shape of gate passes issued as well as identity cards issued by the MTNL. A rejoinder has been filed to that affidavit and in that rejoinder there is nothing to be found explaining why, if no workers are being engaged for running the canteens, identity cards have been issued to the various members of the Petitioner trade-union, where they are described as employees working in the canteen. In the absence of denial in the rejoinder filed on behalf of the Respondent No.1, we have to accept as a fact that the members of the Petitioner, whose names have been disclosed in the list annexed to the affidavit dated 23-11-2010 , have been working in various canteens maintained by Respondent No.1 on temporary basis. The stand taken by the Respondent No.1-MTNL that they are running the canteens by serving food items bought from outside is misleading and is incapable of being believed in the face of documentary evidence produced on record. In our opinion, it was for the Respondent No.1 to explain in the Kambli 6 wp1111.98 rejoinder why gate passes have been issued to the members of the Petitioner describing them as employees of the Respondent No.1 , when the Respondent No.1 are not maintaining any canteen. In these circumstances, therefore, we have to accept the case of the Petitioner that its members continue to work as temporary employees in the canteens of the Respondent No.1. Perusal of the order of the Supreme Court dated 28-2-1994 shows that the MTNL has made a statement before the Supreme Court that they have taken policy decision to regularise the services of the employees working in the canteens. In terms of that policy, in our opinion, the members of the Petitioner are entitled to have their services regularised. 6. In the result, therefore, petition will have to be allowed. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. O R D E R (i) The Respondent No.1/MTNL shall take steps to regularise the services of the members of the Petitioner- Kambli 7 wp1111.98 Trade Union, who are presently working on temporary basis in the canteens of the Respondent No.1 and extend to them all benefits of regular employees. (ii) This shall be done by the Respondent No.1 as expeditiously as possible, in any case, within a period of eight weeks from today. (iii)Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)