1 S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2062/2007 HADMANA RAM & OTHERS V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. DATE OF ORDER ::: 02/04/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. P.S.Bhati, for Petitioner (s). Mr. Dinesh Mehta, for Respondents. This writ petition is filed essentially for non- implementation of the order at Annexure-1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits tht pursuant to the acquisition of the land, a settlement was arrived at amongst land-holders, the company, the RIICO, the Government of Rajasthan, as well as MLAs of the area concerned. Pursuant to the settlment by all the parties concerned, the respondents were required to give employement to the land-holders as was agreed at Items No.2 and 3 of the aforesaid settlement at Annexure 1. It is contended that though almost all the petitioners have not been employed, but they are not permanent, hence it is prayed that a direction be issued to treat them permanent. In the alternative, it is also prayed that if such a direction 2 cannot be issued, then, it should be directed that the petitioners who have been engaged through the contractors should be treated as engaged by the company itself, as in document Annexure-1, no arrangement is provided for employment of any Khatedar through the contractor. Lastly, it is contended that whoever is not employed as yet, out of the petitioners, he should be employed, subject to the condition that the possession of the land by the person concerned would be given to the company. Learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petition is not maintainable against the company as it is not covered by Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The other argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the employment through the contractor is also permissible and in view of that, no direction should be given by this Court. It is lastly contended that if any of the petitioners has not been offered employment, then he would be employed subject to giving possession of the land by such petitioners. 3 I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Perusal of the record Annexure-1 reveals that record of discussion was made in the presence of the Government representative and therein respondent-company had agreed to give employment to the person concerned whose Khatedari of land has been acquired. The company has employed many of the petitioners, but out of them, few of the petitioners have been employed through the contractors which is not otherwise mentioned in Annexure-1. Thus, accepting arguments of the petitioners with regard to employment of few petitioners through contractors cannot be said to be satisfied as mentioned in Annexure-1 and, therefore, at the first instance, respondents are given direction to treat employment to all the petitioners who have been employed through contractors to be an employee engaged through the company and suitable order in that regard be passed, becuase in Annexure-1 it has not been provided that company can engage any of the Khatedars through the contractor. It is apart from the fact that in view 4 of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (Rajasthan Amendment) even employment through contractor is nothing but an employment by the principal employer himself, thus even the respondents could not satisfy this Court as to what they are going to achieve anything by engging any of the persons through contractors. It is contended that if employment is given through the contractor, then a supervision is made by the contractor, such plea cannot be accepted in view of the fact that when others are supervised by the company themselves, then why any other employees cannot be supervised by the same means. In view of the above, the company is required to undertake the necessary exercise as directed above within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment. So far as the issue regarding employment to left out petitioners is concerned, it is made clear that such employment would be made subject to giving possession of the land by the petitioner, thus with handivng over of the possession of land by the petitioners, respondent-company would give employment to them as per Annexture-1. So far as the employment on permanent basis is concerned, such plea of the petitioners cannot be accepted as there exists no 5 provision in Annexure-1 regarding permanent or temporary employment. However, without making any comments in that regard when prayer made by the petitioner, it does not exist in Annexure-1, it cannot be accepted. The petitioners, houwer, would be paid wages as agreed and ehnanced by the respondents. So far as the maintainability of the writ petition against the company is concerned, it is a petition not against the respondent-company alone, but against the Government authorities also who all were parties to Annexure-1 which is required to enforce Annexture-1. Thus, taking note of this fact, coupled with the fact that in Annexure-1, even SDO was made Chairman of the Committee, necessarily this writ petition is not against the company itself as the Government and authorities are also parties to the writ petition, as otherwise, mentioned in Annexure-1, thus objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of the writ petition is not sustainable and the said objection is rejected. In view of the directions and observations made above, necessary compliance of the order would be made 6 by the respondents within the time-frame given above. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of accordingly. (M. N. BHANDARI), J. scd