The Hyderabad High Court on Tuesday dismissed petitions challenging the regularisation of outsourced workers in different transmission corporations of Telangana.
The order passed by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice V. Ramasubramanian struck down a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition and another writ petition filed by unemployed youngsters on the matter.
Citing different Supreme Court verdicts, the bench agreed with the contention of the counsel for transmission corporations, G. Vidya Sagar, that PIL is not maintainable in service matters. “The SC made it clear that except a writ of quo warranto, no PIL is maintainable in service matters,” the verdict said. However, the second writ petition was not a PIL and was filed by unemployed youngsters who contended that an opportunity to to seek jobs in these corporations should be thrown open to them. Hence, the petition cannot be struck down on the ground of maintainability, the judges observed.
The regularisation was made as part of a settlement reached under section 18 (1) and sealed under section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. These settlements were not challenged. “Settlements reached under this section during conciliation proceedings are binding even upon persons who are not parties to the dispute,” they noted.
If a settlement said to be ex facie unfair, unjust or mala fide is not challenged, the courts cannot question correctness of the settlement. The counsel for the petitioners contended that the corporations come within the definition of “the State” or at least “instrumentality of the State”.
He argued that hiring thousands of persons on outsourcing basis, continuing them for long periods and absorbing them 'defeats the equality concept' in articles 14 and 16 of Indian Constitution. This was a case of clash of interests between one set of citizens and another. Outsourced persons, whose services were regularised under section 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act have constitutional sanction under article 21 of the Constitution.
They over-weigh or eclipse the rights of the unemployed (petitioners in the present case) under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the verdict said. The bench didn't agree with the contention of the petitioners that the Supreme Court's verdict in State of Karnataka versus Umadevi case declared such absorptions arbitrary.
The apex court had recognised the powers of the Labour Courts to regularise contract workers and these powers were not affected by the decision in Umadevi case.
