LexM/S PARADEEP PHOSPHATE LTD. versus PARADEEP PHOSPHATE MAZDOOR UNION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
{2014] 8 S.C.R. 582
M/S PARADEEP PHOSPHATE LTD.
v.
PARADEEP PHOSPHATE MAZDOOR UNION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8151 of 2014)
AUGUST 26, 2014
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]
Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 - s.
C 10(1) - Writ petition seeking regulaisation of employees - On basis
of the Notification issued by the State Government for abolition of
contract labour in respect of the workers in OAP Plant-Cleaning of
granulation dry section, cleaning in combustion chamber -
Meanwhile, State Advisory Contract Labour Board had
o recommended prohibiting contract labour system in 16 areas of
the Company - In another writ application, wherein parties were
common, the Company directed to reconsider the recommendation
of the State Advisory Contract Labour Board with regard to abolition
of Contract Labour in respect of 15 other areas left out by it and to
E take appropriate decision, however, no action taken - Plea by the
company that the State Government is not an appropriate
government/or the purpose of the Act and the notification was not
binding upon the Company - In the writ petition, High Court directed
the Company to implement the notification abolishing the contract
labour and to regularize the service of the workmen - In review, order
F modified to the extent that only those workers engaged in the
cleaning of granulation dry section, cleaning in combustion
chamber, to be regularized - On appeal, held: Since the decisions
in the writ petitions have reached finality, such question cannot be
re-agitated in another writ petition between same parties as the
G question.will be hit by the principles of res judicata - Once the
Notification for abolition of contract labour in respect of the workers
in OAP Plant-Cleaning of granulation dry section, cleaning in
combustion chamber, etc. was issued, it was incumbent on the part
of the Company to implement the same - Since it was not
H
582
PARADEEP PHOSPHATE LTD. v. PARADEEP PHOSPHATE 583
MAZDOOR UNION
implemented, the High Court rightly directed to implement the
A
same - Order passed by the High Court not called for interference.
The State Government issued Notification dated
28.04.2000 for abolition of the Contract Labour in respect of
workers engaged in OAP Plant-cleaning of Granulation, dry
section, cleaning in combustion chamber, etc. Meanwhile, the , B
State Advisory Contract Labour Board in its meeting in the
year 1999 had recommended prohibiting contract labour
system in 16 areas of the Company. The respondents-
Mazdoor Union filed a writ petition O.J.C. No. 7464/2000
seeking directions to the appellant to enforce the said
Notificalion. It was submitted that in a writ application O.J.C.
No.2751/2000 wherein parties were common, the Company was
directed to reconsider the recommendation of the State
Advisory Contract Labour Board with regard to abolition of
Contract Labour in respect of 15 other areas left out by it and
c
D
to take appropriate decision according to law. However, no
action was taken. In writ petition O.J.C. No. 7464/2000, the
appellant contended that the State Government is not an
appropriate government for the purpose of the Act and the '
notification was not binding upon it. The High Court holding
that the Central Government is not the appropriate
Government, allowed the writ petition and directed the
appellant to regularize the workers engaged in the OAP plant.
The appellant filed a review petition. The court modified the
said order to the extent that workers engaged in cleaning of
Granulation, dry section, cleaning in combustion chamber,
were directed to be regularized. Hence, the instant appeal.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
E
F
HELD: 1.1. In two Writ Petitions disposed of by the High
Court, similar question regarding implementation of the
G
recommendation of the State Advisory Contract Labour Board
was considered. In these cases, the appellant-Company
neither contended nor raised the question that the State
Government is not the appropriate government. Since the
decisions in the aforesaid writ petitions have reached finality,
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 8 S.C.R.
A such question cannot be re-agitated in another writ petition
between same parties as the question will be hit by the
principles of res judicata. [Para 9, 10, 11) [587-H; 588-A-D]
1.2. Once the Notification dated 28th April, 2000 for
abolition of contract labouExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.