VISVESWARAYA IRON AND STEEL LIMITED CONTRACT EMPLOYEES UNION REGD BHADRAVATI Vs. MANAGEMENT OF STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VISVESWARAYA IRON AND STEEL PLANT BHADRAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are posted for orders on the memo filed by the petitioner-union seeking to dispose of the writ petitions reserving liberty to the petitioners to raise an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act condoning the delay in approaching him by placing reliance upon the judgment of the, supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited and Others v. National Union waterfront Workers and Others, AIR 2001 SC 3527 : 2000 (7) SCC 1 : 2001-II-LLJ-1087.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the first respondent opposed the prayer made in the memo placing reliance upon sub-para (5) of paragraph 125 of Steel Authority of India limiteds case referred to (supra), where in it is held that on issuance of the prohibition, notification under Section 10 (1) of the Contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conditions of service the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance with various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefit thereunder. It is submitted that in the instant case, there is no abolition of contract labour by respondents and 2; that since the mines owned by the first respondent had beep closed, the employment was refused and as such the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has no application to the facts of the present case. It is further contended by the learned counsel for respondent 1 that an industrial dispute was raised on behalf of the concerned workmen by the petitioner/union; that the State Government in exercise of its power under Section 10 (l) (c)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the same to the Labour Court, Mangalore; for adjudication of the industrial dispute between the parties as per the points of dispute referred to it, that in the said reference the respondent/management had taken up a contention that the Karnataka State government is not the appropriate Government in terms of Section 2 (a) of the Act 1947 to make the reference to the Labour Court, Mangalore; that the Labour Court accepting the said contention has rejected the same; that the said , award has not been challenged either by petitioners or their trade union and as such the relief prayed for by the petitioners in the memo cannot be granted by this Court.

(3.) AFTER considering the rival contentions ; urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the parties, I am of the view that the disputed questions. of fact namely, whether there is abolition of contract labour or refusal of employment to the concerned workmen or otherwise as stated by the Apex Court at sub-para (5) of paragraph 119 of the Steel Authority of india Limiteds case, (supra), 2001-II-LLJ-1087 at 1132 requires to be resolved either by the central Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court ; on the reference being made by the Government of India in exercise of the power under Section 10 (l) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act by the appropriate Government.