Justice K Chandru of the Madurai Bench said it was suffice to state that Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) had taken the decision to carry out the works through contract and by outsourcing when there was shortage of permanent employees and that it would not cause any loss of employment to permanent workers.
"Therefore, the contention that Sec 9 A of the I.D Act will get attracted is not true," he held dismissing the petitions by CITU-affiliated 'Tamizhaga Arasu Pokkuvarathu Thozhilalar Sangam' and 'Nellai Mavatta Pokkuvarathu Thozhilalar Sangam' seeking to quash a TNSTC notification awarding nine works on contract basis.
The unions had contended that without any settlement or award such a notification of handing over nine works to contractors was against the Industrial Disputes Act.
The TNSTC contended all works done by the contractors were those which were not affecting the maintenance and safety of the buses in its operations. All the core and essential work to run the buses safely were done only by the permanent employees.
Also, the works done by contractors were inspected by TNSTC's qualified technical supervisors only upon their approval payment was made.
The corporation also submitted that five works including bodybuilding and tyre retreading, were being carried out through contract work for the past 20 years and no union had objected to it.
Now they were opposing without any justification. Besides the question of retrenchment did not arise, it argued.