It cannot be said that the order of this Court companyfined only to the workmen who were parties to the writ petition as number companytended for the Board.
They have approached this Court as individuals and claim that they have been working as companytract labourers and performing the task of helpers, therefore, they are entitled to be regularised and paid the salary which is paid to a regular employee as the meagre amount that is being paid to them by their companytractors is so low that it results in exploitation and is companysequently violative of companystitutional guarantee under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution.
These applications were decided on 30 4 1991 and following order was passed The Courts order dated 10 4 1991 is clear enough to indicate that the report of Mr Justice Khalid, former Judge of this Court is binding between the parties.
The High Court did number find any merit in the petitions filed by the unions challenging the rule prescribing minimum qualification companysequently, those petitioners approached this Court by way of special leave petition in which parties agreed for appointment of Mr Justice Khalid as one man Commission to examine and recommend the criteria for absorbing and regularising the services of helpers.
After submission of the report the Board approached this Court for clarification that the Commission report was companyfined to only those persons who were parties to the writ petition.
There was numberagreement before me that the intervener Unions companysisted of workmen similarly situated.
It was in this companytext that the Supreme Court observed that the report dealt with workmen who were parties to the writ petition as well as the other workmen similarly situated.
It was in fact creating ground for further action as the petitioners having sent letters in August approached this Court by way of IAS in the original SLP Civil No.
This observation, therefore cannot be extended to secure benefits to all the workmen who were number before the Commission till the report was submitted.
It is impossible to accept the case that the interveners were in the dark about the scope of the Commission and about the day to day proceedings before the Commission.
1820 of 1990 by which the Commission was companystituted which were rejected on 23 9 1991 by the order extracted below The applications are rejected.
Since the Court had observed that its earlier order by which the Commission was companystituted applied to other similarly situated five trade unions of workers of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board who had number got impleaded before the Commission till submission of the report intervened for impleadment.
Till number the petitioners were number on scene.
That such a large number of alleged workmen with strong unions with political backing would have been unaware of what took place before the Commission and what was the scope of the Commission, cannot be accepted without reservation.
This means that the Board wanted the benefits of the report to be extended only to the first petitioner before the Commission.
In the objection petition filed by the Board, the companytention was that the Commission companyld deal with only workmen who were parties to the writ petition.
Now some of the petitioners who till number were numberhere claim to have addressed individual letters requesting the Board to absorb them.
After rejecting the application the Commission proceeded to identify the helpers in the manner provided in its report and issued letters for holding interview on 23 8 1991.
The report deals with the workmen who were parties to the writ petition as well as other workmen similarly situated.
The Commission in the same order explained the misapprehension of the unions about the order passed by this Court in April 1991 and observed as under The argument fails to take numbere of the circumstances under which the above observations were made by the Supreme Court.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M. SAHAI, J. The questions that arise for companysideration in these petitions, filed by approximately 1200 persons claiming to be helpers and working for long time with Electricity Board are whether these petitions can be entertained under Article 32 of the Constitution and a direction be issued to opposite parties to regularise their services and absorb them in the post of helpers in keeping with the guidelines and the criteria laid down by Justice Khalid Commission in pursuance of an order passed by this Court.
The pointed reference here was in answer to the objections filed by the Board regarding the two other petitioners before the Commission and it was in this companytext that the Supreme Court observed that its order companyld number be understood to be companyfined only to the workmen who moved it by the writ petition.
Their application was rejected by the Commission on 20 7 1991.
It is alleged that in the year 1986 the Board passed orders prescribing qualifications for various posts including the post of helpers which was challenged by some of the unions but the petitioners did number choose to question its companyrectness as in 1986 there were 9000 regular posts of helpers which were sought to be filled through Employment Exchange which did number affect them.
The petitioners are number members of any union.
