PROMATHA DAS MAHANTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sixty petitioners in this writ petition dated January 7,2003 are seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Mr. Sengupta, counsel for the sixth respondent, questions the maintainability of the writ petition, insofar as the prayers (a) and (b), seeking reliefs against the sixth respondent, a private company, are concerned. He says that since the sixth respondent is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. the writ petition seeking reliefs against it is not maintainable. Faced with this preliminary objection, Mr Chakraborty, counsel for the petitioners, submits that he has received instructions to say that the petitioners are not pressing prayers (a) and (b).

(3.) Under prayer (c) the petitioners are seeking a mandamus commanding the respondents to issue a notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. In view of the relief sought, I requested both Mr Chakraborty and Mr Sengupta to examine which Government would be the appropriate Government in relation to the sixth respondent. After examining the provisions of Section 2 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 and the provisions of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, both of them have agreed that in relation to the sixth respondent that has its registered office in Mumbai and is also carrying on business from its place of business in Durgapur, the State Government is the appropriate Government.