RAJESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed by petitioners praying for a direction to the respondents to close the conciliation proceedings pending before the respondent No. 3 and refer the same for adjudication to the Court. It is alleged in the petition that majority of the petitioners were employed to work for respondent No.1-2 through the contractor who is Respondent No. 4 and the said petitioners were performing the duties of cleaning and sweeping. It is contended that no license was, however, obtained to engage the contract workers from the concerned authorities. The petitioners have filed a statement of claim before the respondent No. 3 seeking for their regularisation of services. It is, however, stated that although the aforesaid statement of account is filed, no proceedings has been initiated by respondent No.3. The petitioners in the Writ Petition have sought for the relief referring the claims to the appropriate Court and also seek for an order to maintain status quo with regard to their employment with respondent No. 2.

(2.) I have heard the counsel appearing for the petitioners as also the counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 to 3. Documents have been placed on record to indicate that some of the petitioners were engaged by the contractor to work in establishment No. 2 for doing the duties of cleaning and sweeping upto the year 2000.

(3.) However, a proceeding is initiated by the petitioner and a statement of claim for their regularisation has been filed before respondent No. 3 praying for reference of the dispute to the appropriate authority for adjudication. Since such a proceeding is initiated by the petitioners herein an order is required to be passed by respondent No. 3 on the said statement of claim filed by the petitioner. Therefore, respondent No. 3. is directed to deal with the statement of accounts and dispose of the same in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within a period of 6 weeks from today. In this connection reference may also be made to the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited v. National Union of Waterfront Workers and this is reported in AIR 2001 SC 3527 : 2001 (7) SCC 1 : 2001-II-LLJ- 1087 wherein the Supreme Court has held that neither Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act nor any other provision in the Act, whether expressly or by necessary implication provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of Section 10 prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process, operation or other work in any establishment and that the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour working in the concerned establishment. It was further held that on issuance of prohibition under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and 5 Abolition) Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by any contract labour in regard to conduct of service Industrial Adjudicator will have to be interposed 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 avoid the compliance of various beneficial legislations so as to deprive the workers of the benefits thereunder. It was also held that expression "industrial adjudicator" was used by Supreme Court by design as determination of the questions aforementioned requires enquiry into disputed questions of facts which cannot be conveniently be made by High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore 5 in such cases the appropriate authority to go into those issues will be Industrial Tribunal/Court whose determination will be amenable to judicial review.