Those who do the same duty for 12 months will have to make it permanent, Milord said on contract workers…

The Supreme Court in its recent decision has ruled that if a person holds a post for years and works like an official of permanent nature, then he cannot be treated like a contract employee and his job cannot be refused permanent. Could.

On Tuesday (March 12), Justice P.S. A bench of Justices Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta said that work of permanent or perennial nature cannot be done by a contract employee and if one does so, it should be made permanent.

The Supreme Court held that workers employed to do work of perennial/permanent nature cannot be treated as contract labor under the Contract Labor (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 merely to deprive them of the benefits of a permanent job. This is a matter related to sanitation workers working in Mahanadi Coalfield.

According to the report of Live Law, Justice Narasimha in his order has upheld the decision of the High Court and the Industrial Tribunal, in which the workers cleaning the railway line were removed from contract workers and given the status of permanent workers and benefits of salary and allowances. Order was given to give.

The Supreme Court underlined the fact that the work of removing dirt along the railway line is not only routine but also of perennial and permanent nature. The court said that for these reasons the employees reinstated on contract should be made permanent.

In fact, Mahanadi Coalfields had made the employment of 19 out of 32 such contract employees permanent, while leaving 13 as contract employees, even though the duties of all the employees were similar and of the same nature.

The union submitted a memorandum against this to the Central Government and Mahanadi Coalfields but when no action was taken, the matter reached the Industrial Tribunal, where the Tribunal ordered to regularize all the 13 contract workers.

Later, the same decision was also upheld by the High Court, against which Mahanadi Coalfields had approached the Supreme Court, but it was disappointed there too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *