BIJAYA KUMAR JENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions involve common question of law and facts and as such, on the prayer and consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE petitioners, in these two writ petitions, have challenged the illegal action of the authorities in allowing engagement of the contract labour in security services of the National Aluminium Company Limited (in short "NALCO") and claimed that since all along the petitioners have been engaged in the security service and since such work is perennial in nature and such work is ordinarily done through regular workmen employed in NALCO, the petitioners are entitled to be declared as regular employees of NALCO which happens to be the principal employer. A Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the learned counsel of the parties at length, directed the Labour Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar to conduct an enquiry after due notice to the parties and submit the report within six months on the question as to the number of contract labourers with their designation, age, date of entry and total period of engagement in the security services of both the units, viz, Smelter Plant and Captive Power Plant of NALCO and the requirement of total number of security personnel in different cadres/posts to be employed on regular basis. The writ petitions were directed to be listed in the month of February, 2000 to pass further orders. In the interregnums, the opposite party -NALCO and its official went in appeal to the Honble Supreme Court and by interim order dated 14.1.2000, the apex Court directed maintenance of status quo relating to all parties concerned.

(3.) THE writ petitioners thereafter filed applications for amendment of the writ petition incorporating certain paragraphs keeping in view the observations of the apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd and others v. National Union Waterfront Workers and Others (2001) 7 SCC 1 that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be appropriate authority to embark upon such an enquiry, but the said enquiry can be done by the Industrial Adjudicator/Industrial Forum and incorporate a prayer that the High Court should refer the dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Forum as to whether the conditions of Section -10(2) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act are fulfilled or not and whether the contract between the NALCO Management and the Contractor is a sham contract in view of the factual position as narrated in the writ application. The amendment was allowed and the petitioners have filed the consolidated writ petition.