HANUMAN PRASAD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition was expedited at the request of the counsel for the petitioners. However, at the time of the hearing the petition was called out twice but neither the petitioners, nor Advocate is present. I proceed to dispose of the petition on merits, as I need not to dismiss it in default, the CP.C. being not applicable.

(2.) The petitioners are employed by the contractors in service of Oil and Natural Gas Commission. They claim that they are the employees of the Commission as the contract labour have been abolished by Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970. It is claimed in the Writ Petition that a writ should be issued to regularise the services of the petitioners fromthe date of their initial appointment and also to give them wages and benefits enqual to their regular counter-prarts. They also prayed for the relief of awarding all arrears in the difference of wages and benefits between the petitioners and their regular counter-parts.

(3.) The counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the Oill and Natural Gas Commission. It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioners had suppressed the facts that they have proceeded under the Industrial Disputes Act and the conciliation proceedings were pending when the present writ petition was filed. They also submitted that the petition raises contentions which are gigputed questions of fact which can be gone into in the appropriate proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act and before the Chief Labour Commissioner under the Act.