Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. The Deputy Chief Commissioner of Labour (Central)

O R D E RThis Writ Petition has been filed praying for issuance of awrit of certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondentin his proceedings No.M.20/1/2007/P1, dated 28.01.2008, and to quashthe same.2. Facts :2.1. The petitioner is a company incorporated under theCompanies Act with effect from 15.09.2000. It has numerous telephoneexchanges, administrative offices and other offices for its smoothfunctioning throughout the State of Tamil Nadu. It is engaged inTelecommunication Services, inter alia telephone lines, cables,maintenance of telephone services etc. For the perennial nature ofthe job and smooth functioning of the company, the company, has, ingeneral, recruited its own employees as per the established procedurefor its core activities. With a view to execute works ofhousekeeping, cleaning etc., the petitioner has obtained aCertificate of Registration under Section 7 of the Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Act,1970, in short, "the Act". TheDistrict Collectors of the area concerned fixed minimum wages forthose engaged in such categories of work from time to time. Takinginto consideration the minimum wages fixed by the District Collectorsconcerned, the petitioner has floated tenders for housekeeping,cleaning and sweeping work for its offices/establishments. Theagencies/contractors who were successful in being awarded with suchcontracts have obtained licence under Section 12 of the Act. Thecontractors are obliged to pay the minimum wages fixed by theDistrict Collectors from time to time to the contract labour engagedby them, as per the tender floated by the petitioner.2.2. The work performed by the regular employees appointedas per the established procedure by the petitioner and the contractlabour engaged by contractors is entirely different and notcomparable. While the work performed by the regular employees is oftechnical, administrative and of core and perennial nature, the workperformed by the contract labour is of unskilled nature and not coreactivity of perennial nature. The engagement, supervision, controland payment of contract labour are carried out by the contractors.The petitioner does not supervise or control the contract labour.The petitioner ensures that the contract labour are made timelypayment subject to the minimum rates of wages fixed by the DistrictCollectors of the area concerned.2.3. The contractual amount payable to the contractors hasbeen worked out taking into account the prevailing minimum wagesfixed by the District Collectors concerned. Any deviation inenhanced rate of payment to the contract labour during the tenure ofthe subsisting agreement between the petitioner and the contractors https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ will have far reaching repercussions and will put the whole contractlabour system in jeopardy.2.4. The Ministry of Labour & Employment, by itsNotification, dated 14.09.2006, has notified minimum wages to thecategories of employees pertaining to telephones/telegram and otherdepartment by its S.O.1521(E) published the revised rates of minimumwages. These revised rates cover the unskilled nature of jobs andcategories for different geographical areas under three differentcategories viz., A,B and C. The minimum wages fixed by the DistrictCollector of respective districts are generally better than the wagesfixed by the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. Therefore, the minimumwages are scrupulously paid without fail by the licensees of thevarious BSNL Offices.2.5. The contract for services was through bid. Tender iscalled for by each and every office and the successful bidder isselected through a selection process. The important condition isthat they have to comply with the statutory requirement of minimumwages, provident fund and other laws. The bidders may vary from areato area and year after year according to the rates quoted by them inconformity with the states. Therefore, same set of contract labourare not engaged by the licensees and the contract labour are notwithin the control of the petitioner. 2.6. The second respondent is not a recognized Union by thepetitioner and, therefore, it has no locus standi to initiate anyproceedings. The third respondent is a Union, representing regularemployees of the petitioner. As such, the second respondentimpleading the third respondent in a dispute which is notmaintainable is illegal and objected to by the petitioner.2.7. The proceedings held on 28.08.2007,19.12.2007 and04.01.2008 in the office of Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner,Chennai, first respondent herein, were duly attended by thepetitioner management and Union. During the meeting held on04.01.2008, the petitioner has stated that as regards uniform wages,the matter was taken with the Chairman and Managing Director (CMD) ofthe petitioner's organization and pending decision from CMD, therates fixed by the respective Collectors of the respective districtswould be adhered to. The minimum rates of wages fixed by the DistrictCollector concerned as per Rule 25 (2) (iv) of the Tamil NaduContract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Rules,1975, are legallyvalid and proper.2.8. That being so, the first respondent has unilaterallyfixed Rs.140/- per day for Housekeeping work and Rs.125/- per day forSweeping/Cleaning work by his order dated 28.01.2008, which isillegal and arbitrary. Hence, this Writ Petition. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, statingas follows :3.1. The Union represents more than 5000 workers employedin the petitioner BSNL all over the State of Tamil Nadu. The workershave raised an industrial dispute with regard to the issue inquestion. The workers inter alia do the jobs of housekeeping,sanitary works and other general services. BSNL enters into atender agreement between itself and the contractors to do the worksof housekeeping and general services. A ban on recruitment of staffin Group C and D categories in Central Government services wasintroduced more than two decades ago. The erstwhile TelecomDepartment was affected the most due to the said ban and more thanone lakh workmen were employed in BSNL on temporary basis forcarrying out these jobs on day-to-day basis. At one point of timeafter the ban, the establishments of Department of Telecommunications(DOT) used casual labour to perform the duties of Group D workers.Thereafter, the DOT decided to engage labour on contract and afterconversion from DOT to BSNL the practice has continued. Though thecontractors have changed, same labour are continuing to work forseveral years now.3.2. The second respondent Union has been espousing thecause of the said workers in BSNL who have been suffering greateconomic hardship due to the gross disparity of wages between themand the regular Group D employees. In the said circumstances, thepetitioner Union made a representation to the Chief LabourCommissioner (Central) New Delhi on 29.06.2005 seeking fixation ofpay based on labour welfare laws for the so called contract labour.Subsequent to the said representation, the Ministry of Labour andEmployment, Government of India, issued a notification dated14.09.2006, revising the minimum wages to be paid to certaindepartments. The said Notification was issued under Section 3 (1)(a) and (b) read with Sections 4 (1) and 5 (2) of The Minimum WagesAct. Thereafter, a second representation was made on 25.08.2006,reiterating the earlier demand and seeking fixation of wages on parwith the regular workmen and requesting the authorities to take upthe case under Rule 25 (2) (v) (a) and (b) of The Contract Labour(Regulation and Abolition) Rules,1971, hereinafter referred to as"the Rules". The Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, forwarded thesaid representation to the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Chennai,first respondent herein, for adjudicating upon the matter, who,thereafter passed the order impugned, which is perfectly in order. 4. The contentions of the learned counsel for thepetitioner are as follows : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) The first respondent has unilaterally fixed the minimumwages especially for contract labour engaged by contractors forexecution of contract in the premises of the petitioner withoutregard to Rule 25 (2) (iv) of the Rules.(ii) The first respondent has not considered the nature ofjobs of unskilled workers engaged by others in telephone services andpayment made to them as per the minimum wages fixed by DistrictCollectors.(iii) The petitioner has entered into an agreement with thecontractors, who have been given licence by the Ministry of Labourand hence, they are necessary parties and any additional liabilitycan be fixed only after hearing the licensees and therefore theimpugned order is hit by non-joinder of necessary and proper parties. (iv) Fixing of rates by the first respondent comparing theregular employees amounts to treating unequals as equals, which isviolative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.(v) In a contract for service, the petitioner has nocontrol over the contract labour.(vi)The order passed by the first respondent is erroneous,unjust,illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of hiscontentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon adecision of this Court in Allied Industries v. E.S.I.Corporation,reported in 2008 (4) LLN 601, wherein it has been held as follows :"9. Following the said judgments of theApex Court and applying the principle enunciatedtherein, this Court comes to the conclusion thatthe order of the authority has got to beinterfered with and set aside and the matter hasto be remitted back to the said authority toredetermine the contribution payable by theappellant, if any, and after either impleadingthe alleged contractors or summoning them andexamining them.10. For all the reasons stated above, thisappeal is allowed and the order of the learnedFirst Additional Judge, City Civil Court,Madras, dated 29 August,2000, passed inE.S.I.O.P.No.41 of 1990 is set aside.E.S.I.O.P.No.41 of 1990 shall stand partlyallowed setting aside the impugned order of theAssistant Regional Director, Employees StateInsurance Corporation, Chennai, dated 23February 1989. The matter is remitted back to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Regional Director, Employees State InsuranceCorporation, Chennai, with a direction toconduct a de no enquiry and decide the liabilityof the appellant to pay contribution afterimpleading the alleged contractors or summoningand examining them. There shall be no order asto costs." 5. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3would contend that the first respondent has heard the parties;considered the nature of jobs of the contract labourers of thepetitioner; the petitioner, being the principal employer, has everycontrol over the contract labour working under them and, hence, theorder passed by the first respondent is just, legal and withinjurisdiction. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties andalso gone through the records.7. On examining the contentions of the parties, what comesto be known is that the second respondent Union represents more than5000 workers employed in the petitioner BSNL all over the State ofTamil Nadu. The workers inter alia do the jobs of housekeeping,sanitary works and other general services. BSNL enters into anagreement between itself and the contractors to do the said works. Aban on recruitment of staff in Group C and D categories in CentralGovernment services was introduced more than two decades ago. Theerstwhile Telecom Department was affected the most due to the saidban and more than one lakh workmen were employed in BSNL on temporarybasis for carrying out these jobs on day-to-day basis. After theban, the Department of Telecommunications (DOT) used casual labour toperform the duties of Group D workers. Thereafter, the DOT decided toengage labour on contract and after conversion from DOT to BSNL thepractice has continued. Though the contractors have changed, samelabourers are continuing to work for several years now. As there wasa huge disparity of wages between the said contract labourers and theregular Group D employees, the workers have raised an industrialdispute, by submitting a representation to the Chief LabourCommissioner (Central), New Delhi, on 29.06.2005 seeking revisedfixation of pay based on labour welfare laws. Subsequent to the saidrepresentation, the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government ofIndia, issued a notification dated 14.09.2006, revising the minimumwages to be paid to contract labourers working in certaindepartments. The said Notification was issued under Section 3 (1)(a) and (b) read with Sections 4 (1) and 5 (2) of The Minimum WagesAct. Thereafter, on 25.08.2006, the second respondent Unionsubmitted another representation to the Chief Labour Commissioner,reiterating the earlier demand and seeking fixation of wages on parwith the regular workmen and requesting the authorities to take upthe case under Rule 25 (2) (v) (a) and (b) of the Rules. Pursuant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ thereto, the Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi, forwarded thesaid representation to the Deputy Chief Commissioner of Labour,Chennai, first respondent herein, for adjudicating upon the matter.On such referral, the first respondent, following Rule 25 (2) (v) (a)and (b) of the Rules, called both the parties for preliminarydiscussion and heard the matter in the presence of the parties onvarious dates. 8. Rule 25 (2) (v) (a) and Rule 25 (2) (v) (b) read asunder :"(v) (a) in cases where the workmen employed by the contractorperform the same or similar kind of work as the workmen directlyemployed by the principal employer of the establishment, the wagerates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of service ofthe workmen of the contractor shall be the same as applicable tothe workmen directly employed by the principal employer of theestablishment on the same or similar kind of work:Provided that in the case of any disagreement with regard to thetype of work the same shall be decided by the1 Deputy Chief LabourCommissioner (Central)(v) (b) in other cases the wage rates, holidays, hours of work andconditions of service of the workmen of the contractor shall besuch as may be specified in this behalf by the Deputy ChiefLabour Commissioner (Central)Explanation.—While determining the wage rates, holidays, hours ofwork and other conditions of service under (b) above, the DeputyChief Labour Commissioner (Central) shall have due regard to the wagerates, holidays, hours of work and other conditions of serviceobtaining in similar employments"9. From the above proviso, it is clear that the DeputyChief Labour Commissioner (Central) is the competent authority todetermine the wage rates, holidays, hours of work and otherconditions of service of the contract workers. Therefore, thecontention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the orderpassed by the first respondent is without jurisdiction cannot besustained.10. Before the first respondent, the writ petitioner didnot dispute or deny the nature of work carried out by the contractworkers nor did they deny the fact that the contract workers areperforming the jobs that are similar to those performed by theregular employees. In fact, the second respondent Union furnishedthe details of the nature of work carried out by the contract workersand regular Group D employees. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

11. The contention raised by the writ petitioner before thesecond respondent was that the jobs performed by the contract workersare through a tender system; the jobs were purely unskilled and thatsome of the jobs performed by the contract labourers were dischargedin less than eight hours. It was also contended by the petitionerthat the minimum rates fixed by the District Collector alone wouldapply to the contract labour and that the minimum wages notified bythe Government of India would not apply. 12. In this context, it is to be mentioned that the minimumwages fixed by the District Collector for the contract labourersunder the powers delegated in item No.32 Appendix 5 of Tamil NaduFinancial Code Volume II are not in conformity with Rule 25 (2) (v)(a) and Rule 25 (2) (v) (b) and, hence, the first respondent is notbound to take into consideration any such fixation made by theDistrict Collector. It is noticed that the work performed by theregular employees and the contract workers is not different. Thiswas also not the stand taken by the petitioner before the firstrespondent. In the impugned order, the first respondent also heldthat there is no denial by the management that the contract workersare doing works identical to that of the regular employees.Therefore, the petitioner is estopped from making such a contentionbefore this Court, when it was not taken before the first respondentat the first instance. The writ petitioner, as the principalemployer, has to make payments as per the minimum wages notifiedunder the Minimum Wages Act. As such, it cannot be said that thewrit petitioner has no control over the work of the contract labourso also the payment of wages.13. As per Section 12 (2) of the Act read with Rule 25 (2)(iv) of the Rules, the wages of contract labour shall not be lessthan the minimum wages fixed for regular workers. This is regardlessof their nature of work. As per the aforesaid provisions, contractworkers are entitled to minimum wages irrespective of the contractualagreement between the management and its contractors. 14. The contract labourers, who also form part of thesecond respondent union, have been suffering with great economichardship due to gross disparity of wages between them and the regularGroup D employees. The second respondent has taken up their causewith an intention to protect their wages as per the labour welfarelaws. When that being the claim of the second respondent union andthey want to represent the workers who are in the lowest grade oftheir employment, the Act and the Rules and the governing principlesare to be followed in the manner as provided, with an avowedintention to safeguard the interests of the workmen. 15. Labour welfare legislation in India is meant for theprotection of poor workmen, who are in need of their livelihood witha dignified life. When that is the claim of the second respondent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ union, the contention of the writ petitioner with regard to the locusstandi of the second respondent that the workmen do not form part ofthe second respondent union cannot be sustained. Moreover, thesecond respondent is a trade union registered vide RegistrationNo.278/VDR, dated 29.03.2000, and hence entitled to represent itsmembers with regard to their grievances, if any. Therefore, thedecision in this regard as rendered by the authority below is inconsonance with the object and aim provided under the labourlegislations. Hence, it cannot also be said that the secondrespondent's union has no locus standi to represent the contractworkers, especially when the said stand was not taken before theauthority.16. With regard to the contention raised by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, it is to be stated that the contractorsare the direct employers of the contract labourers and the petitioneris the principal employer and they have a mandatory obligation toextend all the benefits under the Minimum Wages Act, based onregisters and records of collection of statistics maintained by thecontractors. Under Rule 74, every principal employer shall maintainin respect of each registered establishment a register of contractorsin Form XII. The personnel employed have also to be registered underRule 75. Employment Cards have to be given to them under Rule 76. Ontermination of employment for any reason whatsoever, the contractorshall issue to the workman, whose services have been terminated aService Certificate in Form XV under Rule 77. Further, Muster Roll,Wage Registers, Deduction Register and Overtime Register are to bemaintained under Rule 78. Therefore, for examination of Muster Roll,Register of Wages, Register of Deductions, Register of Overtime,Register of Fines, Register of Advances and Wage Slip, everycontractor shall display an abstract of the Act and Rules in thelanguage spoken by the majority of the workers in such form as may beapproved by the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and the same haveto be examined by the principal employer for necessary claim of theworkers. Hence, the contractors should go before the authority andprove as to what are all the claims made by the contract labour andto tell the authority as to what should be the material documents inrespect of their claim. When those documents are placed by the writpetitioner, being the principal employer, before the authority, thesame have been perused and examined by the authority, includingtender schedule, scope of work, Department standard for determiningthe strength (DGP&T letter No.19-10/73-TE dated 1.2.75, Rates ofwages fixed in respect of the sweeper category by the DistrictCollector, Coimbatore, Erode, Tiruchirapalli, Madurai, Dindigul,Tuticorin, Salem and Dharmapuri, and as regards the scope of workfurnished by them,viz., removal of waste papers, cleaning of toiletsand urinals daily, cleaning of windowpanes, mirrors in toilets etc.,cleaning walls, ceiling and cobweb on daily basis, daily watercleaning of floors and mopping and also sweeping of floor, cleaning https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of water coolers, water drums, glasses water jugs and flasks dailyetc. Thereafter, the authority has come to the clear opinion that thewrit petitioner has neither denied the fact of nature of work carriedout by the contract workmen nor made any submission over the dutiesof regular workmen. The authority, after visiting the varioustelephone exchanges at Coimbatore and Erode and interrogating aroundhundred contract workmen as well as some regular employees, has cometo a clear conclusion that though it has been admitted that thecontract workers are working in the regular nature of jobs, it willbe difficult to apply the determination of equal pay for equal workto those employed on contract. The authority cited a ruling of theSupreme Court in State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh and Others,1996(11) SCC 77, wherein it has been held that though equal pay for equalwork is considered to be a concomitant of Article 14 as much as equalpay for unequal work will also be a negation of the right, equal paywould depend upon not only the nature or the volume of work, but alsoon the qualitative difference as regards reliability andresponsibility as well and though the functions may be the same, butthe responsibilities do make a real and substantial difference. Inthe interest of justice and equity, the authority was left with noother alternative than to decide the case of contract labourersengaged under the above rules and, accordingly, the authority decidedthe wages. Though the principle laid down in the cases referred bythe learned counsel for the petitioner is that without impleading thecontractors, the case of the second respondent would be fatal and theauthority has not taken into account the non-joinder of the partiesand decided the matter, it is to be stated that, in the givenpeculiar facts and circumstances of this case, as the authority tookinto account the various factors and without any difficulty todetermine and decide the case of this type, the Commissioner ofLabour has special knowledge of the provisions of the Act and decidedthe matter, even without summoning the contractors and impleadingthem. 17. In the above circumstances, the authority, oncompliance of all the requirements under Rules 74 to 79 and when allthe registers, records and materials are furnished by the writpetitioner before the authority, on full satisfaction of the same,arrived at a reasonable conclusion, even though the contractorsconcerned are not parties to the proceedings. Even assuming that thecontractors are called into the box and examined, the materials whatare all furnished by the writ petitioner before the authority underthe above rules would only have to be furnished. 18. On analysing the position of this case, though theprinciple of law on this point is clear that non-joinder of partiesis fatal, in the given circumstances of the case, I am of theconsidered opinion that the non-joinder of the parties will not hitthe decision rendered by the authority. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19. In the impugned order, the first respondent has heldthat the rates fixed by the District Collectors cannot be madeapplicable to the contract workers working in various telephoneexchanges due to the following reasons :i) It is not relevant to the industry, i.e., TelephoneExchange.ii) The workers are working in multifarious jobs other thansweeping work etc. under the supervision of Principal Employer.iii) The rates of wages fixed related to variousdepartments of Tamil Nadu where NMR workmen are engaged.iv) In some cases, the so called contract workers areworking in regular nature of jobs as per the guidelines/manualsubmitted by the respondent, vide letter No.19-19/73-TE dated 1.2.75.v) The rates of wages determined by the District Collectorsare far below the minimum wages fixed by the Government of Tamil Nadufor various unskilled type of work. Those rates are basically meantfor the small scale establishments and individual contract workmennot engaged through any contractors.20. The minimum wages notified by the Government of TamilNadu for various unskilled workers also have been examined beforedetermining the rates of wages. Accordingly, the first respondenthas fixed Rs.140/- per day for Housekeeping work and Rs.125/- per dayfor Sweeping/Cleaning work. More importantly, it is significant tomention that the authority has arrived at the finding only followingthe ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of State ofHaryana v. Jasmer Singh and Others, 1996 (11) SCC 77; Gammon IndiaLtd. v. Union of India, 1974 (1) SCC 596 and Air India StatutoryCorporation v. United Labour Union & Others, 1997 (9) SCC 377. Inthis regard, it is pertinent to extract the relevant portions of thedecision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gammon India Limited,which read as under :"30. The provisions contained in CentralRule 25(2)(v)(b) are challenged as unreasonable.Rule 25(2)(v)(a) states that wages, conditions ofservice of workmen who do same or similar kind ofwork as the workmen directly employed in theprincipal employer's establishment shall be thesame. In case of disagreement with regard to typeof work, it is provided that the same shall bedecided by the Chief Labour Commissioner whosedecision shall be final. Rule 25(2)(v)(b) statesthat in other cases, the wage rates, holidays andconditions of service of the workmen of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ contractor shall be such as may be specified bythe Chief Labour Commissioner. There is anexplanation to this clause that while determiningwages and conditions of service under Rule 25(2)(v)(b) the Chief Labour Commissioner shall haveregard to wages and conditions of service insimilar employment. This is reasonable.31. The complaint against Rule 25(2)(v)(b)is that there is no provision for appeal. It isnot difficult to determine and decide cases ofthis type. The Commissioner of Labour has specialknowledge. It will be a question from statute tostatute, from fact to fact as to whether absenceof a provision for appeal makes the statute bad.The provisions contained in Rule 25(2)(v)(b)refer to wages, hours of work and conditions ofservice in similar employment. A provision forappeal is not inflexible. The issue is simplehere. A long drawn procedure may exceed theduration of employment of the workmen. A properstandard is laid down in the explanation to Rule25(2)(v)(b). The absence of a provision forappeal is not unreasonable in the context ofprovisions here. The Commissioner shall have dueregard to the wages of workmen in similaremployment's. The parties are heard and theCommissioner of Labour who is speciallyacquainted with the conditions, applies theproper standards. There is no unreasonableness inthe Rules."21. In the present case, the authority has come to theconclusion taking into account various notifications, the rates fixedunder the relevant rules, wage register, and the conditions ofservice. The authority also held that in case the contract workersare engaged for less than eight hours, the rates of wages may be paidon pro-rata basis and if the payment is to be made on monthly basis,the wages may be arrived at by multiplying the daily wages by 26days. The authority further held that necessary clause may beincorporated in the contract agreement between the principal employerand the contractor. The said order of the first respondent, which waspassed after discussing the matter at length and with reasons, in myconsidered opinion, cannot be found fault with. However, theauthority has given the effect of the order from 1st January,2008.22. A serious stand in respect of date of effect of theorder has been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner on theground that it shall not have the effect prior to 20th May,2009, thedate on which the notification by the Central Government was made. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ But, this submission has been repudiated by the learned counsel forthe second respondent, stating that the authority has arrived at theconclusion based on the contract agreement between the principalemployer and the contractor; the notification of the CentralGovernment, dated 07.08.2008 and the wages fixed by the saidnotification are Rs.180, Rs.150 and Rs.120 and the furthernotification dated 20.05.2009 and, therefore, the date of effect ofthe order shall not be less than the earliest notification dated07.08.2008. 23. While examining the above position, it is to be statedthat unless the appropriate Government notifies the rates of wagesand that notification is the basis to be taken into account, thefixing of wages by the authority in this case with effect from 1stJanuary,2008 cannot be permitted. Instead, the date of effect of theorder has to be taken into account from the date of firstnotification i.e., 07.08.2008.24. The workers concerned in this writ petition belong tothe lowest strata of the society, who do menial jobs in theestablishments of the writ petitioner, and they deserve to be treatedwith dignity so that they are able to keep their body and soultogether while working, in which situation, interfering with theimpugned order, excepting the date of effect of the same, in thiswrit petition is not warranted.25. Subject to the above modification in the effect of theorder of the first respondent, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Nocosts. Consequently, the connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 are closed.Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrardixit To1. The Deputy Chief Commissioner of Labour (Central),Shastri Bhavan, V Floor,No.4, Haddows Road,Nungambakkam,Chennai-600 006. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The General Secretary, Tamil Nadu Telecom Contract Workers Union, (Telecom Working Telephone Exchange) B.S.N.L., Rajapalayam-626 117. 3.The Circle Secretary, B.S.N.L.Employees Union, Tamil Nadu Circle, No.21, R.K.Srinivasa Flats, Bharathi Nagar I Street, Pazhavanthangal, Chennai-600 114.+ 1 cc to Mr. Govindaraj, SR.54003+ 1 cc to Mr. R. Vaigai, Sr.54189W.P.No.24552 OF 2008SR(CO)Eu 19.9.11