BOLANI ORES MINES Vs. GOVT. OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the Management of Bolani Ores Mines, Raw Materials Division (SAIL), Barbil assailing the order dated 30.10.1996 (Annexure- 5) passed by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India in making a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar for adjudication, which is quoted here under:

(2.) The genesis, in a nut shell, that gives rise to this writ petition is that the Management of Bolani Ores Mines is an establishment of the Steel Authority of India Limited (for short 'SAIL') at Bolani in the District of Keonjhar, Odisha. It extracts Iron Ores from its captive mines and supplies the same to different industrial undertaking of SAIL through out India. The Raw Materials Division of Bolani Ores Mines (for short 'the Management') engages different transporters for extraction and transportation of Ores from its captive mines. The Labour Contractors also supply contract labourers for carrying out different jobs of the Management at different points of time. While the matter stood thus, opposite party no.2, namely, Barbil Workers Union through its General Secretary gave a strike notice under Sec. 22 (1)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the I.D. Act') raising a demand to regularize the contract labourers being engaged through contractors. Subsequently, the matter was taken up by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Rourkela opposite party No. 4, who vide letter dated 111.1995 had sent a notice to the Management-petitioner to attend the conciliation proceeding in the matter of prohibition/abolition of contract labour system and regularization of contract labourers under the Management-petitioner. Pursuant to the said notice, the representatives of both the petitioner and opposite party no.2-Barbil Workers Union appeared before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Rourkela-opposite party no.4. Conciliation being failed, the Assistant Labour Commissioner communicated the failure report to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India-opposite party no.1. The Government of India in Ministry of Labour, in turn, referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, Odisha for adjudication of the aforesaid reference. Consequently, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar initiated I.D. Case No. 42 of 1996 (C) on his file and sent notices to the parties concerned including the Management-petitioner to appear and file written statement along with relevant documents vide his notice dated 21.07.1997 (Annexure-6). The petitioner being aggrieved by the action of opposite party no.1 in referring the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of the reference under Annexure-5 as well as consequential notice (Annexure-6) issued by the Industrial Tribunal to the petitioner to appear and file written statement for adjudication of the reference, has filed this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the reference made by the Government of India-opposite party no.1 is not maintainable and the same is an outcome of total non-application of mind. Neither any industrial dispute exists nor apprehended, which warrants the impugned reference for adjudication. The opposite party no.2- Union had raised a demand for regularization of contract labourers under the Management-petitioner, who were engaged through different contractors to carry out transportation contracts. He further submitted that the question of regularization of contract labour only arises, when the appropriate Government prohibits engagement of contract labour in an establishment by a notification in the official gazette under Sec. 10 (1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition), Act, 1970 (for short, 'CLRA Act'). There being no such notification published in the official gazette, the reference made by the Government of India is without jurisdiction and not maintainable. The Clause 5.1.2 of the NJCS agreement is relevant to take a decision about perennial nature of work in an establishment. The same has no application to the instant case as there is no notification under Sec. 10(1) of CLRA Act. On the contrary, the Ministry of Labour, Government of India in its letter dated 19.05.1995 (Annexure-4) had communicated the General Secretary of Indian National Mines Worker Federation, Dhanbad regarding decision with regard to prohibition of Contract Labour System in Iron Ore Mines, which indicates that in pursuance of the recommendation of Central Advisory Contract Labour Board of Ministry of Steel, the appropriate Government has decided not to prohibit employment of contract labour in the Iron Ore Mines in the country. In that view of the matter, the reference made by opposite party no.1 in exercise of power under Sec. 10 read with 12(5) of the I.D. Act is an outcome of total non-application of mind and is not maintainable. Making a reference is not an empty formality. The appropriate Government has to apply its mind to find out as to whether there exists a prima facie case with regard to existence or apprehension of industrial dispute. Further, the reference does not contain the list of names of the workers sought to be regularized. As such, the reference is also vague and non-specific. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order under Annexure-5 making a reference to the Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar for adjudication as well as for a mandamus to direct the Industrial Tribunal not to proceed with I.D. Case No. 42 of 1996 (C).