BUDDHADEV MAITY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition was listed first on 20th September 2011. Learned counsel for the Petitioners was asked to address the Court on the question of maintainability of the writ petition particularly in light of the judgment of Five Judge Bench of this Court dated 1st August 2011 in Sterling Agro Industries Limited v. Union of India 181 (2011) DLT 658.

(2.) MR. R. K. Saini, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) (`CLC') to take a decision on the Petitioners' representation regarding payment of wages to contract labour, like the Petitioners, on par with the regularly employed workmen performing the same work in the Respondent Indian Oil Corporation (`IOC') at its Haldia Oil Refinery Plant in West Bengal. Referring to Rule 25 (2) (v) (a) of the Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition (Central) Rules, 1971, MR. Saini points out that the decision in this regard has to be taken only by the CLC who is located in Delhi. It is submitted that the failure of the CLC to reply even to the legal notice issued on behalf of the Petitioners to him on 10th August 2011 provides a cause of action for this Court to entertain the writ petition. It is further submitted that in terms of the judgment of Five Judge Bench of this Court in Sterling Agro Industries Limited v. Union of India, this Court has to only examine whether it is convenient for all the parties for it to entertain the writ petition. It is submitted that in as much as the Petitioners, who are admittedly residing in Midanpore in West Bengal, have subjected themselves to inconvenience by approaching this Court for relief, and are not going to complain of such inconvenience, and further since the Respondents are also not going to suffer inconvenience in defending the writ petition, the present writ petition ought to be entertained. MR. Saini draws the attention to the observations of the Supreme Court in Alchemist Ltd. v. State Bank of Sikkim (2007) 11 SCC 235.

(3.) MR. Saini does not dispute the fact that as a result of the decision in Sterling Agro Industries Limited, this Court is under no compulsion to entertain the writ petition. He, however, submits that since a small part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court, discretion should be exercised by this Court to entertain the writ petition.